Personal View site logo
US: Unemployment
  • 138 Replies sorted by
  • cbrandincbrandin
    But history teaches that when things are bad "Laissez-faire" policies don't work. If you can find an example where they did (help in bad times, that is) I'd like to know about it. On the other side of the argument we have the great depression. I think we need to differentiate responsibility for the problem and responsibility for a solution - the former is usually called "blame".

    Chris
  • cbrandincbrandin
    @bwhitz

    Are you implying with the IQ issue that welfare should go to intelligent people, or stupid people?

    Chris
  • bwhitzbwhitz
    "OK, but if you also won't let the government be responsible for recovery programs then who is left to try to make things better?"

    Nobody. The essence of "scapegoat-ism" is just the mentality of holding someone responsible. Sometimes nobody is responsible. Sometime shit just happens. Sometimes you get dealt a shitty hand.

    I guess in the end, it's just up to all of us on an individual level to make the best out of our situations.

    We're letting our world get out of control, there just aren't going to be enough resources and jobs in the future to support our ravenous population. We all need to practice person responsibility. The most selfish people are often the ones that are pointing fingers and calling others selfish. I guess you could say that we're all to blame.
  • cbrandincbrandin
    OK, but if you also won't let the government be responsible for recovery programs then who is left to try to make things better? I was responding precisely to the blame issue. As you so aptly put - scapegoating. Even if we could apply blame appropriately (i.e. not the victims), that still won't have fixed anything.

    Chris
  • bwhitzbwhitz
    @cbrandin "Blame young black people for being unable to get a job instead of those who won't hire them (sometimes for very bad reasons)."

    I don't think there really is anyone to blame here... There is just not enough jobs. Period.

    You can't blame businesses for not hiring more people than they need (that will only de-value everyone's work). And you cannot blame the young kids for being unemployed, when there is no demand for their labor. If we are to blame someone, we need to look at who let the world get into this state in the first place... which might get tricky.

    "Welfare is bad"

    Welfare itself is not bad. Help those who need it and they will in turn help the rest of society. It sounds very good in theory. However, it makes one big assumption... that all people are good and have the noble intentions at heart. The fact is, is that most of us are still selfish animals with primitive brains. Most people are still wired to be opportunists from biology. Welfare takes from those producing and gives it to those who are not. That's the bottom line, and a huge contradiction if you want a society to survive. If welfare is to continue, it needs to be more strict... with IQ tests and such. Or maybe for kids under 18 in poorer areas... use welfare money to instead reward kids for good grades or community service or something? Nobody should get something for nothing...
  • cbrandincbrandin
    @KCG

    Point taken. I wasn't trying to imply that you are racist. I was just pointing out that the logical consequence of blaming the victims of this recession is that those most in need get most of the blame - and that does feed racist inclinations with these statistics.

    Thinking about history many parallels between today and 1934-1936 can be drawn. Starting in about 1934 there was a "new conservative" movement that was in reaction to the government's recovery efforts (which, by then were working quite well). It's astonishing how similar their rhetoric was to what I hear today: "Welfare is bad", "the government needs to stop spending", "social assistance programs motivate people to not work", etc..., etc....

    What happened was that these "new conservatives" gained considerable power in 1936 and the recovery stopped immediately and we slipped right back into depression - it was called the "recession within the depression". Within two years the "new conservatives" had totally discredited themselves, government programs went back into effect, and recovery started once again never looking back.

    I don't like the idea of blaming those in need - I prefer the idea of helping them, even if it does raise taxes. I think history teaches that.

    I apologize for any unfortunate implications I made - they were not directed at you personally, they were directed at what I perceived as an extremely unfortunate misdirection of blame.

    Chris
  • KCGKCG
    bwhitz is correct, my post has nothing to to with race and everything to do with the state of the government.
    I won't ignore that the original post (relating to blacks) itself seems racial because it is! However the numbers do not lie and come from bls.gov which is non-bias.
    Please don't bring a race issue into it, I think Vitaly probably brought it up because the numbers are so high if it were true of another race of people I guess you could infer what you stated above. However there are several factors that tie into those numbers and the least of which I'm sure are race relations among Americans.
    BTW cbrandin your inference probably has more to do with the nature of Vitaly's post and (trying to read between the lines) than the resulting comment from me.
  • cbrandincbrandin
    But that's the logical consequence of the comment - irrespective of the intent.

    I liked your comment much better - the one about scapegoating. Blame young black people for being unable to get a job instead of those who won't hire them (sometimes for very bad reasons). Welfare is not the problem.

    And there is no way I'd rather have a handout than work.

    Chris


  • bwhitzbwhitz
    @cbrandin

    I don't think KCG was implying that at all. He was just saying, in general, that people are less inclined to work when there is a safety net built out of tax payers dollars. It has nothing to do with race. Statistics may lean towards one race over another... but that's just how the cards fell at that particular time. It could have been Caucasians, could be Hispanics... doesn't matter.

    Hell, I'd rater get handouts too than work... wouldn't anybody? That's why it just shouldn't be allowed. Unless it was caused by "an act of God" (yea, that's actually a legal term) where your house exploded, or you get into some kind of accident, ect...
  • cbrandincbrandin
    @KCG

    From your comment I infer several things:

    1) Black people are lazy and the younger they are the lazier.

    2) Black people prefer welfare to work.

    3) When unemployment doubles for young black people suddenly twice as many young black people become lazy and prefer welfare.

    4) Welfare causes unemployment.

    Are you kidding? The argument is circular and backwards. If a higher percentage of black people are on welfare, it is easily explained by the fact that a higher percentage of them are out of work. All I think that indicates is that we in the USA still have a problem with racism. If you look at international statistics you will see that those countries with low unemployment (by a long shot) are countries with significant social programs - where almost everybody "suckles the taxpayers tit" to some extent. That would imply that welfare reduces unemployment in the long run.

    Clearly you are entitled to your opinion. I find it hard to stomach such an abuse of statistics, however. Like the old saying goes - if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

    Chris



  • bwhitzbwhitz
    I think the root of the problem is that there simply aren't enough jobs for the size of the population in the US. The infrastructures of our cities cannot support us anymore. You can see it plain as day in cities like LA where a commute to work 10 miles away takes 2 hours... if this is left unchecked, the commute will eventually take longer than the actual work day, and it will be too late to prevent the collapse of the city. It made sense in the agricultural and industrial eras to populate an area as much as possible, but not anymore, we've transitioned out of that time-period. It makes no sense that people without jobs, and on welfare, still have the right to have 5 children if they desire... it doesn't make any sense at all. We need to wake up and start being more logical over here.

    The mindset of people in the US here is too entangled in scapegoat-ism. i.e. People think they are allowed to do whatever they want, and if something goes wrong... then it's someone else fault... or the government's... or someone didn't give them enough opportunity... or blah blah blah.
  • KCGKCG
    Not surprised, can't make the lazy work when the Gov. allows them to suckle the taxpayers tit.
  • Ian_TIan_T
    Oh....don't get me started... :-)
Add a Comment