From Laurie...
In my previous comment I implied my views were influenced by the news sources I choose. Maybe my views (party affiliation) are mostly influenced by the fact that I am a non religious white woman. NYT Polarization Quiz
97 comments:
Agreed... You are pretty much a creature of your demographic...
College educated
Non-religious
Woman
Urban
Minnesotan
White should have pushed you Right...
Does it bother you that your beliefs and polarization have little to do with your deep intellectual thought and more to do with these few pre-determining factors?
I'm not sure the interesting thing here is the drift, but rather the gap-- the increasing polarization, perhaps because of but also driven by the increasing lack of civility, where we no longer have to respect the views of others who have a different opinion. Now we simply call them names, import evil motivations, or outright physically attack them, seemingly with no compunctions whatsoever.
"Now we simply call them names, import evil motivations, or outright physically attack them, seemingly with no compunctions whatsoever."
What do you call someone who does awful things with awful intentions?
What do you call someone who does awful things with good intentions?
Are they the same or different?
Moose
Jerry,
Now you do realize that it is hard to take you seriously while you so ardently support our current Name Caller in Chief... :-)
Wiki Trump Name Calling
FOX Trump Name List
NYT Trump Insult List
ABC The whackos love Trump :-)
"What do you call someone who does awful things with awful intentions?" --Moose
It depends. Would /I/ believe what they were doing was awful, and with awful intention? I don't think I want you deciding whom I should label as beneath contempt.
It’s okay that you don’t want to answer the question.
Moose
I would try to set them right, since calling them names doesn't change the situation. But I refuse to condemn those YOU think I should condemn. Your judgment is questionable in such matters.
And another thing: throughout history, most people "doing awful things" actually believe they are doing the right things for the right reasons. Modern liberals, for just one example.
And we are back to one of this blogs favorite sayings...
"The path to hell is paved with good intentions."
Moose,
Back to your questions:
1. What do you call someone who does awful things with awful intentions?
2. What do you call someone who does awful things with good intentions?
3. Are they the same or different?
Moose Jerry is on the correct track.
- What is an awful / good thing?
The war on poverty tried to help poor people, it paid women to live separately from the child(rens) father and it contributed to the failure of millions of families.
Stopping illegal border crossers does end their search for a better life in America, however it limits the number of low end workers and should help raise wages. Also, it stops illegal immigrants from "budging in line" of legal immigrants.
- How are you going to guess at one's intentions?
Were the War on Poverty Liberals trying to break up poor families?
or were they trying to help families and children escape poverty?
Is the GOP trying harm illegal border crossers?
Or trying to protect our American poor and low end workers?
Of course they are different:
- Hitler wanted to kill millions of Jews. I would say that is bad intentions, but he probably thought he was saving many more Germans.
- Trump wants to slow illegal immigration and asylum seekers. If you know his true intention, you are better at reading minds than I am.
Moose,
Speaking of dodging questions... I still want to know what you would have done with the ~1 million people who apparently showed up at our door step uninvited?
What would you do with say 20 uninvited visitors who showed up at your front door demanding entrance to your home? And if another 20 showed up the next day? And the next...
"Trump wants to slow illegal immigration and asylum seekers that do not have white skin."
Fixed it for you.
Moose
"The war on poverty tried to help poor people, it paid women to live separately from the child(rens) father and it contributed to the failure of millions of families."
What proof do you have that things would have been better without these programs? Yes, there were some unintended consequences, but family breakup isn't just an American phenomenon, it's a worldwide one. It's also true, by the way, that millions of families were *already* broken up before the War on Poverty.
"Is the GOP trying harm illegal border crossers?
Or trying to protect our American poor and low end workers?"
Oh, come on, you can't even possibly believe that the GOP is trying to protect American workers.
One of the great things about this country, or at least USED to be great about our country, is that we used our wealth and power to help people. I don't have the answers; I never claimed to. But this country is vastly wealthy, and there are people much smarter than any of us here who could figure out a way to handle the numbers of people wanting to enter our country, but the brain drain in this administration is real. Expertise is no longer a qualification. The only qualification is whether you can kiss Trump's ass sufficiently to please him, expertise be damned. Data and Science no longer matter to the administration and its brainless supporters. It only matters that someone can make a buck. Whether they destroy human lives or our natural resources is unimportant. Or perhaps that's the point; it's impossible to know with this administration. But we can judge the character of this administration by the fruits they produce: dead immigrants, a destroyed environment, redistributing wealth from the poor to the rich, lining Trump's pockets with taxpayer money, an economy on the brink of recession, white supremacists on the rise, angered allies...the list goes on and on, with seemingly no end to the corruption and malfeasance.
We told you in 2016 that this stuff would happen. Trump showed us long ago what kind of awful person he is. Some believed him and were properly disgusted. Some decided they were okay with the lies and corruption.
Moose
Moose, I'm sorry, but Trump-hatred is no excuse to allow rampant law-breaking and misery at the southern border. Question: How do YOU know that most of these people are not "white"? The census generally lists them as "white hispanic." You just do not like the idea that a President you despise (for no good reason, IMHO) is trying to enforce the law and do what is good for Americans. We get zero benefit for bringing in people unable to support themselves, and certainly no benefit from the drugs, gangs, and assorted criminals mixed in with them. Why are you so determined to harm US? That hardly strikes me as the moral high ground.
Sean,
The good or bad thing about poverty is that it pushes people to stay together. Be it a young mother staying with her parent(s), relatives or friends. Or a young mother staying with her husband.
Now if it is an abusive relationship it may be bad. Otherwise it is usually good for the mother and child(ren). Especially if the mother is young, emotionally not mature yet, needs help, etc.
Unfortunately the war on poverty freed a lot of young Mothers not to be dependent on their parent(s), relatives, friends or the father. So why would she stay and put up with the lectures? She is confident and has money now.
PEW The US Family Then and Now
PEW 1/3 with Single Mom
"We get zero benefit for bringing in people unable to support themselves..."
Yet all the raids happen at places of employment. Funny how that works.
"and certainly no benefit from the drugs, gangs, and assorted criminals mixed in with them."
Immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than citizens. Stop lying.
Moose
Sean,
Actually I think Trump is trying to help American workers and the companies they work for. The GOP was more for open trade, cheap labor, cheap imports, etc.
Now we are:
- reducing the number of "cheap workers"
- making consumers and companies pay more for imported goods
- American based companies and plants pay less in taxes
- pressuring China to stop steal intellectual property to protect long term US competitiveness
Please remember that Unions are a race to devastation.
Growing our employers is good for all of us.
Moose,
Their doing those jobs reduces the pressure on those companies to increase wages. Not a good thing.
Many of them are law abiding individuals. However you really need to stop denying that trafficking, drugs, etc come across the border with the flow.
Crime Fact Check
Fact Check 2
Personally I wish we could bring in more law abiding immigrants and ship our criminals / dead beats back to Central America.
A few years there and they would likely appreciate the USA much more. :-)
"However you really need to stop denying that trafficking, drugs, etc come across the border with the flow."
Again, you attribute things to me that I have never said or suggested.
Please stop.
Moose
"certainly no benefit from the drugs, gangs, and assorted criminals mixed in with them. " Jerry
"Immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than citizens. Stop lying." Moose
The jury seems to be out based on the fact checks. And Jerry's comment certainly is accurate. So what did you mean?
I meant what I said.
Moose
I did not deny crime. I actually did the opposite. I mean...I said, "Immigrants commit crimes..." And you somehow read "Immigrants don't commit crimes."
It's annoying and dishonest.
Moose
"She is confident and has money now."
Yes, I can see how that would be problematic for you.
"Please remember that Unions are a race to devastation."
That's just pure nonsense.
Moose,
You said he was lying for saying what you now say you are agreeing with.
Sean, Have you had 17 to 24 year old children yet?
Sean, Explain that to all the companies that they helped to bankrupt.
"You said he was lying for saying what you now say you are agreeing with."
It's a lie to say that the crime is a problem, when its general effect on the country is a lower crime rate.
Moose
"Explain that to all the companies that they helped to bankrupt."
Typical Appelen nonsense. Blame the little people instead of the people who, you know, had the actual power.
Actually the math does not work that way.
If the illegal immigrants were not here,
those additional crimes would not occur here.
Our legal citizens could not be harmed
by people who are not here....
And please note that the fact check pieces
are unsure if the rate is very different.
"Have you had 17 to 24 year old children yet?"
No. But I'm giving them the background they need to make their own way, and I'm not going to live in fear of them getting older and being strong and independent.
Sean,
This Heritage Piece is Interesting
Being reliant on welfare is the opposite of "getting older and being strong and independent".
Now let's say that despite your efforts you have a daughter who is pregnant at 18 and wants to keep the child. And maybe she has fallen into a questionable crowd and making choices that may harm her or the child. Maybe even becoming addicted?
Do you really want her being given money and housing that comes with "no strings"?
How do you see her being nudged to mature, grow, learn, etc?
I have friends who have gone through this so I am curious how you will answer.
"If the illegal immigrants were not here,
those additional crimes would not occur here."
The math is very simple, and you still got it wrong. Not sure I would trust your bookkeeping skills if you can't get something this simple correct.
If the U.S. Citizenry has a crime RATE, and you add people to the country who as a group have a lower crime RATE (or the same crime RATE...whatever), the overall crime RATE in the country cannot go up.
So, it is a lie to say it's a problem, because the very same problem (or worse) already exists in the country.
Moose
"Do you really want her being given money and housing that comes with "no strings"?"
Which program -- specifically -- gives money and housing with "no strings".
"This Heritage Piece is Interesting"
Sure, unions aren't necessarily great if you're looking at it from the perspective of a business owner.
Society benefits in other ways, though. A 2018 study from researchers at the U found that union workers make 16% more than non-union workers, which translates into a 23% reduction in the amount of public services used. Union membership tends to decrease income inequality and it is a valuable counterweight against employer monopsony power in the labor market.
Moose, John beat me to the point but it bears repeating. You said "Immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than citizens. Stop lying." Sorry, it is the undeniable truth.
People who are not here commit crimes at the rate of zero. People who are not here do not take jobs away from Americans. People who are not here do not burden our social "safety net." Now, that some come here and do "jobs Americans won't do" is a seriously flawed argument, but I would be willing to entertain the notion of a MANDATORY guest worker program. Instead of an ICE raid, we simply tell every employer that every employee that does not pass an E-verify screening be given a letter that says, in brief, "get legal (as a guest worker) or get out." And no new hires allowed without an E-verify check. Turn off the economic/jobs magnet and the only people coming across would be coming to NOT work.
Y’all are bad at math. If you remove a population with a lower crime rate, the crime rate overall will increase.
You folks don’t understand the distinction between the rate and the total number of crimes.
You fail at basic math. No wonder you’re a Trumper and a Climate Change denier.
Moose
Moose,
Personally I care about the total number of crimes incurred against legal American residents, not the average crime rate.
Also, you have not proven the illegal rate is lower. My sources are mixed.
I'll do a post on this one.
Sean,
Pretty much any program that help to provide for a child.
I mean unless the Mother becomes a child welfare risk.
As for unions, the Heritage piece acknowledge that members make more. However they acknowledged the pressure this put on companies to move the jobs to stay competitive in the market. And I am still waiting for consumers who Democrats to buy based on "Union Made" instead of "Best Value for themselves".
"Personally I care about the total number of crimes incurred against legal American residents."
Then you'll also have to prove that the crimes committed by immigrants are being committed against American citizens.
The point remains: populations of people will contain unsavory elements, no matter the origin of the people, so to call it out as a problem smacks of the usual Right Wing xenophobia and fear mongering.
Moose
"Pretty much any program that help to provide for a child."
They all have strings though. For instance, TANF and SNAP have work requirements. Federal housing aid doesn't have work requirements, but 90% of all people on it are either working, already on another program subject to work requirements, disabled, or elderly. And even that doesn't "give" free housing -- it just reduces rent to 30% of a person's income.
"However they acknowledged the pressure this put on companies to move the jobs to stay competitive in the market."
Those conditions have, in part, been created by policy choices we have made that could be undone. That said, even being non-union wasn't going to protect much American manufacturing from the vast discrepancies in pay in places like Mexico or China.
Moose,
Though I have not fact checked this, it should make the point.
Serious Crimes by Illegal Aliens
Or this one
"Though I have not fact checked this, it should make the point."
From the SLPC:
'FAIR leaders have ties to white supremacist groups and eugenicists and have made many racist statements. Its advertisements have been rejected because of racist content. FAIR’s founder, John Tanton, has expressed his wish that America remain a majority-white population: a goal to be achieved, presumably, by limiting the number of nonwhites who enter the country. One of the group’s main goals is upending the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which ended a decades-long, racist quota system that limited immigration mostly to northern Europeans. FAIR President Dan Stein has called the Act a “mistake.”'
Your link is like using Nazi propaganda to prove that Jews are bad.
And your other link is from a conservative public policy organization.
Do you have any links that aren't biased?
Moose
Moose, where did you learn your math? If our current, made-in-America criminals create X crimes, and illegal immigrants create Y crimes, then the total crime increases by Y amount. NOW, set Y=0, and crime does NOT increase.
Sean,
From what I understand there is no work requirements on the child's part of the free money and services side. Am I correct?
Unions for better or worse have a few of primary goals:
- raise the wages and benefits of their senior workers
- protect the jobs of those workers
- get more workers paying dues
Unfortunately none of these goals align with increasing the number of jobs available to legal American workers, ensuring customers are satisfied and keeping the businesses financially healthy in the long term.
I agree that greedy managers are a problem...
However greedy employee organizations can be just as bad or worse...
I am sure I told you about:
- working on a Saturday with a guy from the Steel Worker's Union. We needed a part from the warehouse so he went and grabbed it. On Monday a grievance was filed by someone from the Warehouse union because we were supposed to call the "on call" guy and wait for him to come in instead.
- working on the railroad on a machine that billed out at $10,000 /hr. We would often end up waiting for the correct union personnel to show up to do some minor task.
It is simply amazing how a union can waste money.
From The Crime Analyst's Blog"
"One question I get all the time is “What’s the crime rate?” However, most of the time when people ask that question they don’t really understand the question they are asking. When citizens call my office and ask “What’s the crime rate?” they are usually asking it in relation to a particular neighborhood. The community where I work is right next to a large military base so we have people moving in and out of the community on a regular basis. What they usually mean is “I want to know if the neighborhood where I am considering purchasing a house is safe?” The answer to that one is complex. They ask about crime rate because they hear the term used in the media and think it will tell them something about the community.
The strict definition of mathematical rate is: “is a ratio between two measurements with different units”. Calculating Rate is a way of normalizing between different units. Crime rate is the number of crimes that occur in a given population. Let’s look at it this way.
Community A has a population of 50,000. Last year they had 5 murders.
Community B has a population of 5,000. Last year they had 2 murders.
Which community had a bigger problem with murders last year? Calculating the crime rate can help us normalize the populations between these two very different sized towns.
Crime rate is normally expressed as the number of crimes per 100,000. In order to calculate this the formula would look like this:
(Number of Crimes / Population) x 100,000 = Crime Rate Per 100,000
Now let’s look at our two communities and see what their murder rate is.
Community A
(5 / 50,000) x 100,000 = 10 murders per 100,000 population
Community B
(2 / 5,000) x 100,000 = 40 murders per 100,000 population"
_______________________________________________________________
See how easy it is to do math, jerry?
Now, what happens if you combine the data for the two populations?
7/55,000 x 100,000 = ~13 murders per 100,000 population. More that the lower rate and less than the higher rate.
And you pretend to understand the math behind the science of global warming. Good grief!
Moose
Moose,
Those are just data.
You needed proof that some illegal aliens hurt or kill legal citizens.
Do you really doubt this?
How about these tragic stories?
Molly Tibbetts
or
This Mother and her children
Google can find you thousands of murdered Americans who were killed by someone who should not have been here
Let's test your theory with some rough numbers.
A. Legal US Residents
(1 mil crimes / 310 mil residents * 100K = 321.5 per 100,000
B. Illegal US Residents
(30K / 11 mil illegals) x 100K = 272 per 100,000
C. Illegal US Residents
(1.03Mil / 321 mil) x 100K = 320.8 per 100,000
Moose,
You are correct that the rate will drop.
Unfortunately that will not help the 30,000 people who were robbed, beaten or killed who would not have been if the illegal residents were not in the country.
Very good math, John. See how simple it is?
Moose
"Unfortunately that will not help the 30,000 people who were robbed, beaten or killed who would not have been if the illegal residents were not in the country."
Those 30,000 would still be subject to a crime rate of 321.5/100K, so depending on the rate of crime by illegals against legals, up to 96.45 of them still would have been. But if they commit crime largely against illegals, it's almost irrelevant to your argument.
Moose
"From what I understand there is no work requirements on the child's part of the free money and services side."
You're expecting a baby to work?
"Unions for better or worse have a few of primary goals:"
Yes, it's true that unions tend to put worker needs first. Just as CEOs tend to put shareholder needs first. A business needs both labor and capital to survive and thrive so there should be some healthy tension there. You consistently place the needs of capital ahead of the needs of labor, which I think -- as the last 40 years of public policy have demonstrated -- has not worked out well for the country as a whole. We need a more balanced approach.
According to the BLS "52 percent of all union members work for the federal or state and local governments." Where they in essence sit on "both sides of the table" and where "management" has no competition nor need to control costs. That's disaster. And any wages and benefits not covered by increased productivity simply make a private corporation non-competitive, like GM.
As for crime, Moose continues to deny that illegal immigrants do commit some crimes, but the number or rate is simply irrelevant because they are not supposed to be here at all. Those who would allow them to come to or stay in this country should bear the moral condemnation for every single one of those crimes.
"Moose continues to deny that illegal immigrants do commit some crimes"
I have not done this.
But you have said they commit more crimes than Americans.
Moose
If a city's population decreased by 10%, but the number of crimes decreased by 5%, would the city be happy that fewer crimes were committed, or concerned that the rate of crime has increased, meaning that the current residents are in more danger than before.
Conversely, if a city's population increased by 10%, but the number of crimes increased by 5%, what would the headline be?
Moose
Moose,
You have consistently avoid my proof that some illegals kill legal a.
Because it is not the point I'm making, which anyone with a brain would already know. This is ridiculous.
Statistically, an American would be safer in a 100% illegal immigrant population than in the general population.
Moose
Moose, you can make your point all day long but it's meaningless. The objective is to reduce crime, and one way to do that is to exclude criminals from the country, or at minimum screen them out. Nothing you have proposed-- "welcoming" etc-- address that situation.
And putting people in concentration camps doesn't address anything at all. It simply makes us human rights violators.
Moose
Well, folks. You heard it here.
A reduction in the crime rate is not a good thing.
Up is down. Down is up. Republicans care about the deficit. Trump is a saint.
Moose
Moose,
The 30,000 people can not be robbed killed if the illegal aliens were not here.
Did you even bother to look at how many innocent legal American residents were killed or assaulted by illegal aliens?
There is no doubt that illegals commit crimes against legals. What would you say to one of these Mothers, Fathers,Siblings, etc. Oh I am so sorry, but the average crime rate may have dropped by some tiny number.
And it is likely that many illegal on illegal crimes are never reported, which skews the statistics if you had bothered to read the fact check links I provided.
Sean,
Please feel free to scoff, however Mother's spend / squander their child's benefits. That is why kids go hungry in the Summer. And young women are somewhat freed to what ever they choose because Uncle Sam foots the bill.
In China people were / are poor, so Parents provide childcare. Adult children care for elder Parents. Here people are relatively independently wealthy due to working or welfare. They can avoid family, friends, education and improvement if they choose. And unfortunately for the kids, we have abuse / neglect and achievement gap data to prove this. :-(
Sean,
I have never found CEO's to put any one first. (except maybe themselves) They strive to maximize revenues, profits, etc. To do this they need engaged and motivated employees. And they need to minimize the risk of huge fines, law suits, etc.
As long as our American consumers demand low cost high quality with no care to where it is made, what pollution it generates there and/or who makes it, the CEOs will have no choices even if they wanted to.
And the wastes that Unions create only magnify the problem.
Moose,
No one has said this. "But you have said they commit more crimes than Americans."
Jerry very clearly said. "certainly no benefit from the drugs, gangs, and assorted criminals mixed in with them. "
I said very clearly. That we really do not know the impact on the crime rates.
Let's see if I can paraphrase Moose, with apologies to Adam Savage: "I reject your reality, and substitute my own."
To the topic, we would have a lot less polarization if there was a great reduction in one side importing evil motivations to the other.
Sean,
This piece explains the decline of unions well.
Here is another.
And another
And another
And another
I pray that Unions will change their focus from defending unnecessary work, seeking steep steps/lanes and protecting poor performers, but I am not hopeful.
Jerry,
Moose certainly is working hard to not read what we have written.
“Moose,
No one has said this. "But you have said they commit more crimes than Americans."
See how easy it is to misrepresent (read:lie about) someone’s argument? You’ve been doing it all day with mine. And now you don’t like it when it’s done to you.
To recap:
I never said illegals don’t commit crimes against citizens. I said it is irrelevant to the argument we were having.
I have never denied that criminals have crossed the border illegally. There are unsavory elements in every human population. It’s simply a fact of life and nothing to have an argument over, so I have not argued about it.
I have argued that people who come here should be treated humanely. You have tried many different ways to justify the mistreatment of these people. Mistreatment that includes being mown down in a WalMart by a Trump supporter, death in concentration camps, and death after being deported to a country in which they’ve never lived. It’s really no wonder that countries are issuing travel warnings for the United States. It’s not a safe place for non-white people right now.
Your failure to understand the problem is not my concern. You are nothing but chaff.
Moose
“...we would have a lot less polarization if there was a great reduction in one side importing evil motivations to the other.”
Pot, meet kettle.
Moose
Moose,
You accused Jerry of lying. We have proven that what he said was accurate.
You have accused us of being Racists because we support Trump to different extents.
What evil motivation have we attributed to you?
What derogatory name have we tried to label you with?
We simply said that you were incorrect and provided the data to prove it.
Now Jerry and My point is very simple.
Molly Tibbetts and many other citizens would likely still be alive and being loved by their families and friends if no illegal aliens were in the USA
As you noted, with this illegal population comes good people.
Unfortunately, they also come with gang members, rapists and murderers.
By the way, you have not provided any proof that the illegal population is more law abiding.
It’s a lie because they are no more likely to be a criminal than your neighbor and such an excuse is being used to treat people in humanely.
A person who supports racism is a racist. There is no other word to describe such a person.
You had your own argument separate from the one I was making. As usual, you created your own idea of my argument and argued against that. Classic straw man.
Moose
Here is some more data on crime rates
“Unfortunately, they also come with gang members, rapists and murderers.”
In no larger numbers than already exist in the US population.
It’s very sad that Molly Tibetts was killed. It was headline news because she was white. Those kinds of things happen to minorities all the time. She wasn’t more likely to be killed because someone crossed the border illegally.
Moose
A. You have not proved your opinion that illegals commit less violent crime.
B. She was killed violently by someone who was not supposed to be here. Someone you would likely support hiding from the proper authorities. (ie Border Patrol and ICE)
You certainly have a lot of concerns for someone with no solutions.
Billions of humans would be safer and better off in America.
How many do you want to invite in?
What criteria would you use?
Would you give preference to those who show up at the border in person, instead of those who apply and wait for permission?
How would you treat them more humanely?
How do you protect the well being of our own poor?
What would you say to Molly's parents?
Moose,
Back to polarization.
I understand that communicating with people who believe differently than you can be hard and emotionally draining. However name calling, accusing and assuming bad intent will usually drive wedges and not solve problems.
Thankfully Jerry and I have thick skin, or we are emotionally unaware. :-)
But labeling us racists, liars, stupid, etc really shows more about you than about us. :-(
And it sure will not help your party win control of the country.
Moose, you keep insisting we are treating these law-breakers (crossing the border is violating the law) more "humanely." That would mean that they should immediately and "safely" be transported BACK across the border and told not to return. It's the same we would do with any other law-breaker, regardless of skin color (which you seem to find a distinction and I do not). Instead, we give them housing, food and medical care while we try to find reasons for them to stay, or reasons to label them more serious criminals-- a simple screening. Let's just say you have a really weird way of judging what is "humane." Suppose some illegal immigrant killed a bunch of white Americans in a Walmart. Would that be tolerable to you? You rail against the opposite as if it were the norm, in support of.... what? What exactly are you supporting? Or are you just being negative and polarizing?
"In China"
China? You're suggesting that China has it right? The China that has a massive government health care system? The China that REQUIRES children to take care of their parents? The China that forces employers to meet hiring quotas in order to be allowed to open? The China that heavily subsidizes housing? The China that requires employers to establish pensions for its workers?
"To do this they need engaged and motivated employees."
Have you slept through the last 30 years? Sure, there are still some companies who work this way. But there are also plenty of models that rely on cheap, disposable labor. The whole "jobber" economy is based on this notion.
"I pray that Unions will change their focus from defending unnecessary work, seeking steep steps/lanes and protecting poor performers, but I am not hopeful."
Are there some bad unions? Sure. Would that you spend the same amount of effort worrying about the bad decisions of management that destroy businesses -- because there have been far more of those. No union collapsed Enron or Arthur Andersen or WorldCom or Lehman Brothers or Washington Mutual.
It's fascinating to me, Because of your background, farmers (who rely on farm subsidies, government price controls in the market and Trump tariff handouts) are the self-reliant salt of the earth, but auto assembly workers who are in a union are a bunch of selfish grifters.
"This piece explains the decline of unions well."
There are many factors. One that gets underplayed is the fact that Republican Party has targeted union power in order to win elections.
Sean,
The extended family reliance model is not state mandated, in fact it is pretty common in most Asian and/or third world societies. America's independence and the welfare reliance is the outlier.
When I explain to folks in China, South Korea and India that Grand Parents often have little to do with the care of the Grandkids, and that we send our old Parents to a nursing home. They think it is a bit strange / cold.
By the way, China's healthcare system is pretty much the same as ours. Except that citizens must be authorized residents of that city. And just renting an apartment does not fulfill the requirement.
They aren't "bad unions" the modern unions just have flawed philosophy as noted in my sources. Instead of demanding excellence from every member, they will strive to protect every member. Look at how hard police unions work to protect people who make life and death mistakes. Or why a union does try to protect a teacher found guilty of an offense. As I said, until they focus on making businesses more competitive with excellent members... They will struggle. Not even the Liberal voters / consumers will pay more for "Union Made".
Yes there are many factors and you like to only focus on one side.
Yes there are poor greedy choices made by some managers. Those companies go bankrupt or disappear. And the Enron guys ended up in much worse straits.
I am not impressed with many of the farm subsidies / bail outs. However as long as our government wants to keep screwing with the food markets and acceptable land use, it seems they can help pay for the negative consequences they help incur.
We tax payers and food buyers get a lot back for that investment. Now if we could get welfare to do so well.
"The extended family reliance model is not state mandated"
Not so sure I agree with your police work there, Lou.
"A new law in China requires adults to provide mental and financial support for their elderly parents, or face fines and other penalties. The regulation entered into force earlier this month, adding new burdens on a generation of urban single children who struggle to live up to traditional standards of filial piety."
VOA: China's Elder Care Law a Struggle for One-Child Families
"By the way, China's healthcare system is pretty much the same as ours."
Huh? Most hospitals and clinics are government-owned and operated. Most doctors are employees of the goverment. Health insurance is mostly publicly financed.
"They aren't "bad unions" the modern unions just have flawed philosophy as noted in my sources"
Your assumption is that there are unions that aren't interested in making the business successful or developing their members. My experience is that is not true. Even more so, it's not everyone's job to protect the business owner.
Killing the golden goose though is bad for all the recipients of its bounty. 😁
Apparently filial piety a key part of their culture and has been for a long time. I have to think ignoring your elders would be considered the equivalent of elder abuse through the eye of Confucius. One is not allowed to just put Grannie in the home and not visit here. It is interesting that they put it into statute.
I am not sure about your health insurance opinion. My company and my peers have health insurance premiums with held to support the China healthcare system. Not sure how the poor get their healthcare. Maybe they have a version of Medicaid.
More on filial piety
Chinese vs American Parenting
This is a very interesting read.
"Even after a number of significant changes, the basic Chinese family structure and its workings remain the same. While most societies are experiencing a cultural death, the Chinese culture is still very much alive with its strong values and belief system still governing the lives of individuals.
With global individualism and economics now affecting all (though somewhat less in China due to controls on education, the media, etc.), a complete preservation of interdependent extended family culture seems impossible.
The need of the hour is to consider and incorporate individual needs without losing the structural importance of the family."
So we American's seemingly hurried the death of the traditional family structure for many millions of unlucky kids. China and other cultures are still fighting to maintain it.
An interesting piece regarding China's healthcare system and challenges
China vs USA Cultures
A lot of detail on China Healthcare Changes
Moose insists that illegal aliens (7% of the population) are no more "criminal" than the rest of us. non-citizens are 64% of federal arrests
Post a Comment