Democrats starting to get the message? (1 Viewer)

[Statorama]

The people pushing for people working harder know (or should know) that it's very unlikely to work for a lot of people but they keep pushing that solution

I know it comes straight out of corporate bingo, but the key is working smarter.  Developing a career isn't on an employer, it's on the employee.

 

[Gally]

The bolded is patently false. There are a lot of people in low paying jobs that can't do any better.

Not to mention the fact that we actually need people in those low paying jobs.

I don't think I have seen anybody say that those jobs aren't needed or should go away.  They should be used as a starting point. 

 

[eoMMan]

I know - I want to spend more.

The people pushing for people working harder know (or should know) that it's very unlikely to work for a lot of people but they keep pushing that solution

Resources are out there....it's just up to the people to use them.

For example, think about your local library.  Think about all that you can do there.  Free internet, free books, endless knowledge on how to improve your career and your life, etc. etc.

Shouldn't that place be packed every minute that they are open?

 

[eoMMan]

Resources are out there....it's just up to the people to use them.

For example, think about your local library.  Think about all that you can do there.  Free internet, free books, endless knowledge on how to improve your career and your life, etc. etc.

Shouldn't that place be packed every minute that they are open?

And to add to this...

Think about something like bartending.  That's a good gig you can do at nights as a 2nd job.  You can learn quite a bit about becoming a competent bartender strictly from books (drink recipes, the lingo, how to deal with customers, etc.)

 

[The Commish]

This kind of draws the line between liberal thinkers and conservative thinkers.

Liberals say "please government, help us get more money from our employers"

Conservatives say "please employers, tell us what we can do to make more money"

This was accurate in 1960....not so much today.

 

[Statorama]

This was accurate in 1960....not so much today.

Hey, I'm not that old!

 

[The Commish]

The people pushing for people working harder know (or should know) that it's very unlikely to work for a lot of people but they keep pushing that solution

I know it comes straight out of corporate bingo, but the key is working smarter.  Developing a career isn't on an employer, it's on the employee.

It's on both and quality employers/employees understand that.

 

[roadkill1292]

This kind of draws the line between liberal thinkers and conservative thinkers.

Liberals say "please government, help us get more money from our employers"

Conservatives say "please employers, tell us what we can do to make more money"

"Deep Thoughts"

 

[Statorama]

It's on both and quality employers/employees understand that.

It's nice if your employer helps nurture your career, but it's not required.  The only person you can count on to move you up the ladder is you.

 

[The Commish]

It's on both and quality employers/employees understand that.

It's nice if your employer helps nurture your career, but it's not required.  The only person you can count on to move you up the ladder is you.

Wish I could agree, but I can't.  The employer has to allow for advancement.  If they don't, there's nothing you can do about it at that job.  As I said, quality parties understand all this.

 

[Statorama]

Wish I could agree, but I can't.  The employer has to allow for advancement.  If they don't, there's nothing you can do about it at that job.  As I said, quality parties understand all this.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be more helpful if your employer took a leading role in your advancement.  But if you sit back and wait for your employer to move you along career wise, you're in for a shock.

ETA: I'm also not advocating that it's beneficial if businesses throw roadblocks in the way of their people.

 

[The Commish]

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be more helpful if your employer took a leading role in your advancement.  But if you sit back and wait for your employer to move you along career wise, you're in for a shock.

ETA: I'm also not advocating that it's beneficial if businesses throw roadblocks in the way of their people.

As a reminder...this is where we started:

Developing a career isn't on an employer, it's on the employee.

Is where we're at now what you meant by this statement?

 

[Statorama]

As a reminder...this is where we started:

Is where we're at now what you meant by this statement?

The primary driver of your career advancement lies with you.  Your willingness to put in the grind.  You striving to educate yourself further.  You reaching out to mentors.  You taking the time to watch some Ted Talks.  Your doing whatever you can to make yourself a valuable commodity.

An actively engaged employer that proactively nurtures your growth is an unbelievable benefit and makes things much easier (and in the end produces a more active and loyal employee base).  But that's not always the case, and employees shouldn't just expect it to happen.

If you're not motivated to improve your lot in life, no amount of prodding by your employer will change your station.  If you're some neck tattoo loser with a bad attitude and a poor work ethic you SHOULD be passed over by the person with the drive to succeed.  

What I'm saying is, the initial motivator in improving ones situation resides within themselves.  They have to set things in motion, not just wait for some kind of employer promotion tsunami that magically pushes them into higher wages.

 

[Dickies]

You completely ignored the bolded. How convenient. 

Well, Don't these people pay minimal taxes?  Can't remember what the statistic is about the percentage of Americans that actually pay federal taxes. 

Of course they pay minimal income tax, because THEY EARN MINIMAL WAGES.  You act like this is some injustice to high income earners.  If life is so good earning minimum wage and paying no taxes, then by all means give it a shot

 

[dickey moe]

A true big, bold idea would be scrapping minimum wage and instituting a B.I.G.

Ughh. I know there is a libertarian argument for this, but it is the slipperiest of slopes.

 

[The Commish]

As a reminder...this is where we started:

Is where we're at now what you meant by this statement?

The primary driver of your career advancement lies with you.  Your willingness to put in the grind.  You striving to educate yourself further.  You reaching out to mentors.  You taking the time to watch some Ted Talks.  Your doing whatever you can to make yourself a valuable commodity.

An actively engaged employer that proactively nurtures your growth is an unbelievable benefit and makes things much easier (and in the end produces a more active and loyal employee base).  But that's not always the case, and employees shouldn't just expect it to happen.

If you're not motivated to improve your lot in life, no amount of prodding by your employer will change your station.  If you're some neck tattoo loser with a bad attitude and a poor work ethic you SHOULD be passed over by the person with the drive to succeed.  

What I'm saying is, the initial motivator in improving ones situation resides within themselves.  They have to set things in motion, not just wait for some kind of employer promotion tsunami that magically pushes them into higher wages.

Thanks....never would have gotten all that out of the generic statement initially presented.

 

[eoMMan]

A true big, bold idea would be scrapping minimum wage and instituting a B.I.G.

Business instead of Game?

Bullet in the Gut?

Books instead of Guns?

Believe in God?

or any of these?

http://www.acronymattic.com/BIG.html

 

[Murph]

Democrats won't release results of "autopsy report" publicly. https://newrepublic.com/minutes/142355/wont-dccc-release-autopsy-report

Unbelievable. Do you think maybe lack of transparency had something to do with Clinton losing?

They still aren't getting the message.

 

[Statorama]

Thanks....never would have gotten all that out of the generic statement initially presented.

You asked, I answered.

 

[IC FBGCav]

The primary driver of your career advancement lies with you.  Your willingness to put in the grind.  You striving to educate yourself further.  You reaching out to mentors.  You taking the time to watch some Ted Talks.  Your doing whatever you can to make yourself a valuable commodity.

An actively engaged employer that proactively nurtures your growth is an unbelievable benefit and makes things much easier (and in the end produces a more active and loyal employee base).  But that's not always the case, and employees shouldn't just expect it to happen.

If you're not motivated to improve your lot in life, no amount of prodding by your employer will change your station.  If you're some neck tattoo loser with a bad attitude and a poor work ethic you SHOULD be passed over by the person with the drive to succeed.  

What I'm saying is, the initial motivator in improving ones situation resides within themselves.  They have to set things in motion, not just wait for some kind of employer promotion tsunami that magically pushes them into higher wages.

When you are on your death bed, do you really think you are going the be thinking about how much you grinded and time you spent earning as positive things? 

 

[Statorama]

When you are on your death bed, do you really think you are going the be thinking about how much you grinded and time you spent earning as positive things? 

It's just the means to the end.  The paychecks that I pocket/save/invest are my gateway to do the things I truly love to do.  

I'm also very proud of the work I do, and I feel my work actually has a very positive impact not only within the company but to the community at large.

Thoughts I'll have on my death bed will probably be of my wife and I in Maui.  Trips like that are possible because I work my butt off.

 

[IC FBGCav]

It's just the means to the end.  The paychecks that I pocket/save/invest are my gateway to do the things I truly love to do.  

I'm also very proud of the work I do, and I feel my work actually has a very positive impact not only within the company but to the community at large.

Thoughts I'll have on my death bed will probably be of my wife and I in Maui.  Trips like that are possible because I work my butt off.

Yeah, you won't be thinking of Maui either.   The wife of course. 

 

[jonessed]

When you are on your death bed, do you really think you are going the be thinking about how much you grinded and time you spent earning as positive things? 

Yes.  It beats sleeping in an alley.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Yes.  It beats sleeping in an alley.

Ah, so either grind or alley.   Got it.   At least you are not total polarized. 

 

[Zegras11]

Yeah, you won't be thinking of Maui either.   The wife of course. 

I'll be thinking of Oahu, wife, and family.

 

[jonessed]

Ah, so either grind or alley.   Got it.   At least you are not total polarized. 

I have to work to make a living.  I would rather not have to do it, but I don't consider it a grind.

 

[Statorama]

Yeah, you won't be thinking of Maui either.   The wife of course. 

You underestimate Maui bro.  The closest thing I've seen to paradise in my lifetime.

 

[IC FBGCav]

I'll be thinking of Oahu, wife, and family.

You will not, hell you almost died, what did you think about?  Or you can save it for Vegas.

 

[IC FBGCav]

You underestimate Maui bro.  The closest thing I've seen to paradise in my lifetime.

Trust me, it won't matter, what will will be simple and probably in the room with you if you are lucky.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The primary driver of your career advancement lies with you.  Your willingness to put in the grind.  You striving to educate yourself further.  You reaching out to mentors.  You taking the time to watch some Ted Talks.  Your doing whatever you can to make yourself a valuable commodity.

An actively engaged employer that proactively nurtures your growth is an unbelievable benefit and makes things much easier (and in the end produces a more active and loyal employee base).  But that's not always the case, and employees shouldn't just expect it to happen.

If you're not motivated to improve your lot in life, no amount of prodding by your employer will change your station.  If you're some neck tattoo loser with a bad attitude and a poor work ethic you SHOULD be passed over by the person with the drive to succeed.  

What I'm saying is, the initial motivator in improving ones situation resides within themselves.  They have to set things in motion, not just wait for some kind of employer promotion tsunami that magically pushes them into higher wages.

One of the few good things a Donald Trump presidency should have done is killed the ridiculous fiction that we live in a meritocracy.

 

[Chapelboy]

You underestimate Maui bro.  The closest thing I've seen to paradise in my lifetime.

Actually Kauai should be the target.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Democrats won't release results of "autopsy report" publicly. https://newrepublic.com/minutes/142355/wont-dccc-release-autopsy-report

Unbelievable. Do you think maybe lack of transparency had something to do with Clinton losing?

They still aren't getting the message.

The Clinton campaign was far more transparent than the winning campaign, so no, I don't think it had something to do with Clinton losing.

Publishing the autopsy is a no-win for the Dems. The fact is, a wide variety of things contributed to the loss in the presidential election.  One factor is that Clinton was a bad candidate and they probably should have nominated Sanders.  But there were other factors too, and when they were all listed the other factors would have gotten all the headlines and any admission of culpability would have been buried. This is exactly what happened when Clinton gave an interview on the topic and mentioned misogyny as one of a long list of factors but only the misogyny claim made headlines.

 

[RCon]

A true big, bold idea would be scrapping minimum wage and instituting a B.I.G.

Ughh. I know there is a libertarian argument for this, but it is the slipperiest of slopes.

One of the selling points is that it's the opposite of a slippery slope.  BIG takes power to choose winners and losers away from politicians.  It's simple and does away with perverse incentives.

 

[Chaka]

But you act like we never were there.  I think most of us (and honestly, most successful people) started with low paying jobs.  Whether it was during high school, during college, whatever....

If minimum wage isn't enough money for you, guess what?  There's a lot of ways in this great country to increase that.

There are ways to increase that for some and the sole determining factor is not hard work.

No matter how hard they try?  No matter how hard they work?

Uhhh...sorry, but this is just wrong.  I'm definitely not arguing that it isn't easier for some people but show me someone who is willing to put in 60 hour work weeks, someone who iis willing to learn to new things, willing to not go buy the latest iPhone, willing to not lease a new car, willing to not have 8 kids, etc. etc. etc. and I will show you someone who will be successful one day.

There are literally thousands of examples of people who do exactly what you're asking of them (I wonder if you ask it of yourself) and can't get ahead for a vast number of reasons beyond their control.

But about your last qualification: How many children is acceptable? Should the number of children you are allowed to have be determined by your economic status at the time of conception? What if you have 8 children while you have a high paying job and can afford them all but then, I don't know say...the entire world economy goes to #### for years and you lose everything, what then? Should they not be allowed to break out of the cycle of poverty at that point?

The bottom line is you are referencing the "welfare queen" fallacy (perhaps unintentionally) and that does not represent even a small minority of people trying to make use of the social safety net.  Do you really think the entire system should be blown up because of an insignificant number of bad actors? It would be nice if we applied that same philosophy, let alone vigor, vitriol and enthusiasm towards the people who were most directly responsible for blowing up the world economy back in 2008, they had a much bigger negative impact on all our lives than the total number of bad actors on welfare ever could.

 

[eoMMan]

There are ways to increase that for some and the sole determining factor is not hard work.

There are literally thousands of examples of people who do exactly what you're asking of them (I wonder if you ask it of yourself) and can't get ahead for a vast number of reasons beyond their control.

But about your last qualification: How many children is acceptable? Should the number of children you are allowed to have be determined by your economic status at the time of conception? What if you have 8 children while you have a high paying job and can afford them all but then, I don't know say...the entire world economy goes to #### for years and you lose everything, what then? Should they not be allowed to break out of the cycle of poverty at that point?

The bottom line is you are referencing the "welfare queen" fallacy (perhaps unintentionally) and that does not represent even a small minority of people trying to make use of the social safety net.  Do you really think the entire system should be blown up because of an insignificant number of bad actors? It would be nice if we applied that same philosophy, let alone vigor, vitriol and enthusiasm towards the people who were most directly responsible for blowing up the world economy back in 2008, they had a much bigger negative impact on all our lives than the total number of bad actors on welfare ever could.

Yup, paint me as the bad guy for thinking people should have their financial affairs in order before procreating....

In regards to your hypothetical of the guy with 8 kids and how he lost his high paying job, what was his occupation? No way he could at least get close to his prior income? Maybe he should thought of having fewer kids if a possible job loss would ruin the family? 8 kids? Really? Did he knock up Octomom?

 

[TripItUp]

Zero sympathy for those deciding to have 8 kids.

at what point are we going to hold people accountable for their piss poor judgement.

 

[tommyGunZ]

It's pretty heartless to not feel empathy for people who have a handful of kids and endure bad luck.  But you're a straight up ##### for not having any empathy for the kids.  And yes, arguing that they shouldn't get help because their parents hit bad luck or made a poor decision is not having empathy.  

 

[MaxThreshold]

It's pretty heartless to not feel empathy for people who have a handful of kids and endure bad luck.  But you're a straight up ##### for not having any empathy for the kids.  And yes, arguing that they shouldn't get help because their parents hit bad luck or made a poor decision is not having empathy.  

Y'know, you come in every thread and spout this fake stuff.  

You claim to have it so good so why aren't you doing more to help?  Nothing is stopping you from sending in more tax money.

 

[eoMMan]

It's pretty heartless to not feel empathy for people who have a handful of kids and endure bad luck.  But you're a straight up ##### for not having any empathy for the kids.  And yes, arguing that they shouldn't get help because their parents hit bad luck or made a poor decision is not having empathy.  

Are we still talking about minimum wage?

 

[humpback]

One of the selling points is that it's the opposite of a slippery slope.  BIG takes power to choose winners and losers away from politicians.  It's simple and does away with perverse incentives.

In theory, yes, it can. In reality, I agree that it can easily be a slippery slope. I'm a supporter of BIG in theory, but have little faith that I'd agree with the details- I have even less faith that we wouldn't be talking about making changes to it within a few years of implementing one.

 

[Chaka]

Y'know, you come in every thread and spout this fake stuff.  

You claim to have it so good so why aren't you doing more to help?  Nothing is stopping you from sending in more tax money.

What an odd response.

 

[MaxThreshold]

What an odd response.

When did the truth become "odd" for you?

 

[Chaka]

Yup, paint me as the bad guy for thinking people should have their financial affairs in order before procreating....

In regards to your hypothetical of the guy with 8 kids and how he lost his high paying job, what was his occupation? No way he could at least get close to his prior income? Maybe he should thought of having fewer kids if a possible job loss would ruin the family? 8 kids? Really? Did he knock up Octomom?

I'm not painting you as a bad guy for your statement I am pointing out that your statement is based upon a fallacy. I am sorry if that makes you feel like the bad guy.

 

[dickey moe]

One of the selling points is that it's the opposite of a slippery slope.  BIG takes power to choose winners and losers away from politicians.  It's simple and does away with perverse incentives.

I understand that perspective on a political level, but I just can't stomach it.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Hooray for socialism!!

Democrats are right on this one.  To bad they help corporations replace Americans with the cheapest workers the World has to offer. 

 

[RCon]

I understand that perspective on a political level, but I just can't stomach it.

Care to unpack that?  What can't you stomach?

 

[RCon]

In theory, yes, it can. In reality, I agree that it can easily be a slippery slope. I'm a supporter of BIG in theory, but have little faith that I'd agree with the details- I have even less faith that we wouldn't be talking about making changes to it within a few years of implementing one.

Even if true, how would it be worse than the current situation, in which we relitigate the details of entitlements, minimum wage, taxes, etc. every couple years?

 

[Murph]

The Clinton campaign was far more transparent than the winning campaign, so no, I don't think it had something to do with Clinton losing.

Transparency should have been a winning issue for Clinton. But she couldn't hammer Trump on it because of her hypocrisy. So yeah, it definitely had something to do with her losing.

 

[Politician Spock]

Zero sympathy for those deciding to have 8 kids.

at what point are we going to hold people accountable for their piss poor judgement.

After we stop holding the 8 kids accountable for their parent's piss poor judgement, unless you want 8 more people making piss poor judgements a couple decades from now. 

 

[Chaka]

Democrats are right on this one.  To bad they help corporations replace Americans with the cheapest workers the World has to offer. 

One of the biggest drivers of that is the fact that we, as Americans, want the cheapest goods the world has to offer. We, as a nation, seem to feel entitled to the best goods, at the cheapest prices delivered to our doorsteps immediately. That goes far beyond party politics. 

If we could change a whole slew of behaviors from the personal to the corporate level I think we could drive the cost of American manufacturing down to competitive levels on the national scale (this would likely involve increased automation so the job boom would be limited by that). I am just not sure we truly have the will to make that happen. A big problem with that notion is it would potentially put a big dent in America's energy sector if we decrease distance of supply chains so dramatically (big oil likes when our goods have to travel all over God's creation before they get to us). Maybe we make up for it with increased consumption in manufacturing sectors but efficiency needs to win the day in that situation to keep costs low enough to keep us happy. And if Big Energy doesn't like something it makes it politically much harder to accomplish. Unfortunately politicians, with very few exceptions, care more about being politicians than doing all the things necessary to benefit their constituents.