What made you go WTF today?

[GGT]

possibly moronic? Sure.
possibly a hilarious staged photo-op? Sure.

Neither deserve government involvement and interference. Is a baby chewing on an empty glass sculpture, problem is that people don't understand what they are seeing. Which is why "I went there."

I'm not crazy about using baby for "hilarious staged photo-ops" using contraband or potentially dangerous objects. And I didn't say a thing about gummint interference, just moronic parents.

[Ominous Gamer]

I just watch Ellen Degeneres dance choreographed hiphop to Lil Jon's Outta your Mind

[GGT]

My WTF relates to surfing cable news. As our economy sputters, several GOP legislators can be found saying, "The unemployed are lazy, unemployment insurance is welfare, we've spoiled the populace with too many entitlements". All we need to do is cut taxes, especially for the top 2% income earners, and cut the safety net to everyone else. In essence, we just have too many people sitting on their asses, collecting money to NOT work. (Plus too many illegal imm'grunts crossing the borders to suck our system dry, stealing jobs and dropping babies....)

WTF.....these people seem to be living on a different planet.

[RandBlade]

My WTF relates to surfing cable news. As our economy sputters, several GOP legislators can be found saying, "The unemployed are lazy, unemployment insurance is welfare, we've spoiled the populace with too many entitlements". All we need to do is cut taxes, especially for the top 2% income earners, and cut the safety net to everyone else. In essence, we just have too many people sitting on their asses, collecting money to NOT work.

Well said

[Nessus]

I wonder what kind of hallucinogens one'd need to visit Randy's world, it seems like a nice place

[Kazuha Vinland]

Go to any YouTube video, pause it and then hold down the left arrow a few seconds.

[RandBlade]

I wonder what kind of hallucinogens one'd need to visit Randy's world, it seems like a nice place

What do you disagree with?

1 The unemployed are lazy - Many, if not most are. That is why they are unemployed
2 unemployment insurance is welfare - This is a truism
3 we've spoiled the populace with too many entitlements - This is true. There is a sense of entitlement towards these rather than it being a safety net, which it was originally designed for.
4 All we need to do is cut taxes - That is a good start
especially for the top 2% income earners - I disagree with this, I'd cut it for everyone
5 and cut the safety net to everyone else - Absolutely, Ireland and many other nations have had to start doing this recently.
6 In essence, we just have too many people sitting on their asses, collecting money to NOT work. - That is the problem indeed.

Of points 1-6, which do you agree, disagree or think you'd need to take drugs to agree with.

[Aimless]

What do you disagree with?

1 The unemployed are lazy - Many, if not most are. That is why they are unemployed

What??

[Illusions]

What do you disagree with?

1 The unemployed are lazy - Many, if not most are. That is why they are unemployed
2 unemployment insurance is welfare - This is a truism
3 we've spoiled the populace with too many entitlements - This is true. There is a sense of entitlement towards these rather than it being a safety net, which it was originally designed for.
4 All we need to do is cut taxes - That is a good start
especially for the top 2% income earners - I disagree with this, I'd cut it for everyone
5 and cut the safety net to everyone else - Absolutely, Ireland and many other nations have had to start doing this recently.
6 In essence, we just have too many people sitting on their asses, collecting money to NOT work. - That is the problem indeed.

Of points 1-6, which do you agree, disagree or think you'd need to take drugs to agree with.

Why are you applying the talking points of someone speaking about the United States, as a US politician, globally?

[RandBlade]

What??

It takes a lot of effort to find a job and also to keep it. Agreed?

Therefore the laziest in society find it harder to both keep and get a job, therefore the laziest in society are more likely to be unemployed. Or do you disagree? Do you think it takes no effort at all to get a job? Or do you think it takes no effort at all to keep one once you've got it?

What was said does apply to the US, it applies just as much to my own and most of our nations.

[Illusions]

The 4% increase in US unemployment was created because corporations cut those positions to save money, and there are not enough new positions opening up that are in the same field that those 4% could apply for.

[RandBlade]

Right so you're saying that:

1 Every single person unemployed is because they lost their previous job
2 Nobody who lost their previous job has been able to get a new one
3 It is not difficult to get a new job when some are available and requires no effort (there's simply none available)
4 It takes no effort to hold down a job if you have one that isn't getting cut

[Khendraja'aro]

Right, Rand, every single unemployed person is unemployed due to the same reason, because everyone is the same. Therefore it holds, that because some unemployed are lazy, all of them must be lazy.

Geeze, man, that's downright dense. If you paint everyone with a pretty broad brush, don't expect everyone to applaud you for your simplistic notions. Unless you're using your rationale of "some equals all" to picture all of us as a similarly afflicted persons, by using yourself as the posterboy for how the world ought to think.

In which case, of course, your surprise was to be expected.

[RandBlade]

How does "many, if not most" = "every single ... all"?

[Flixy]

And you're saying that every single person unemployed is because he is too lazy to find a new one, and none try hard to get new jobs?

Besides, I thought unemployment insurance was insurance - that you only get if you have paid premiums for it in the previous years.

[RandBlade]

Again who is saying "every single", I never said that

[Khendraja'aro]

How does "many, if not most" = "every single ... all"?

Did you actually read the original post you were replying to and agreeing with? Furthermore, I'd like some substantial source for this "many, if not most" of yours, other than your unsubstantiated opinion which obviously has some serious logic problems.

[Flixy]

Again who is saying "every single", I never said that

And neither did he.

BTW, I didn't see the two posts previous to mine when I posted that.

[Illusions]

Right so you're saying that:

1 Every single person unemployed is because they lost their previous job

I'm saying at least half are.

2 Nobody who lost their previous job has been able to get a new one

This is pretty much a truism since the unemployment rate is calculated based on people who are actively looking for work, and if they had been able to get a new one, they would not be unemployed.

3 It is not difficult to get a new job when some are available and requires no effort (there's simply none available)

You're implying that the majority of unemployed are unemployed due to laziness, I'm implying that they are unemployed because there are not enough jobs to employ them all, the available jobs may not be applicable to a percentage of these people due to mismatching skillsets (ie. a computer programmer would not be able to successfully apply for a job as an accountant or graphic designer), because there are so many unemployed people looking for jobs competition has become much fiercer, and some companies are wary of hiring over-qualified people, especially if the job is not in the field the applicant has a degree or background in, because the company doesn't want to hire someone who is only going to stick around until the economy improves and that applicant can get a job elsewhere.

4 It takes no effort to hold down a job if you have one that isn't getting cut

There are plenty of lazy people who are currently holding jobs. There are plenty of people who are unemployed that are not lazy, or at least not as lazy as those mentioned in the first sentence. If reality acted like your fantasy world did, those lazy people would be fired, and the non-lazy unemployed would replace them. Since this is not happening, we are left to assume that the world does not work as you assume it to.


Edit: In addition it has become relatively easy to search for and apply for a job. Since a company can't tell if an applicant is lazy until they conduct an interview or are employed for a certain amount of time, I'm left to assume that a good portion of the unemployed are unemployed either because there are no jobs available in their skill set for which they are qualified, or that the ones that are available, others are more qualified for (which isn't unfathomable when you have a 9 - 10% unemployment rate).

[Loki]

I wouldn't say the unemployed are lazy, but a lot of them could be working if they were less picky. There was recently an article about numerous companies in the US being unable to get enough workers (and in fact, haven't seen the number of applications increase since the recession started), because people aren't willing to change industries, move to a different state, or take a major pay cut. People are still looking to do the same jobs they did before, if maybe with a 10-20% decrease in pay. The reality is a lot of the jobs that disappeared in the recession will never come back, and that kind of attitude is partially the cause of our chronic unemployment.

[Aimless]

It takes a lot of effort to find a job and also to keep it. Agreed?

Therefore the laziest in society find it harder to both keep and get a job, therefore the laziest in society are more likely to be unemployed. Or do you disagree? Do you think it takes no effort at all to get a job? Or do you think it takes no effort at all to keep one once you've got it?

What I think is that it's disingenuous of you to focus on only one aspect of unemployment, and I hope you don't let that sort of misguided semi-statistical reasoning determine how you treat--or speak of--unemployed persons.

I'll admit I don't know for sure why most people in the UK are unemployed. I myself live in a country where a person's name can be as important as his resume, when it comes to getting an interview; where an unemployed person is less likely to land a new job than is an already-employed person (presumably because people assume that unemployed people are likely to be worse); where people lose jobs for various reasons, from laziness to economic downturns to restructuring; where even hard-working people have difficulties securing new jobs for structural reasons.

An unemployed person may be unemployed for a number of important reasons, and I think it's uncool to focus on just one reason for the sole reason that it allows you to justify both a disrespectful attitude towards them as well as political/ideological views against welfare.

As for my previous post, I understood your statement to mean that you believe most unemployed people are unemployed because they're lazy, but that you can concede that it may just be many rather than most.

If you believe that most unemployed people are unemployed because they're lazy, then I believe you're wrong. If you believe that many are unemployed because they're lazy, then I question the wisdom and the fairness of changing policies in ways that may unfairly hurt those who are unemployed for reasons other than laziness.

[Aimless]

I wouldn't say the unemployed are lazy, but a lot of them could be working if they were less picky. There was recently an article about numerous companies in the US being unable to get enough workers (and in fact, haven't seen the number of applications increase since the recession started), because people aren't willing to change industries, move to a different state, or take a major pay cut. People are still looking to do the same jobs they did before, if maybe with a 10-20% decrease in pay. The reality is a lot of the jobs that disappeared in the recession will never come back, and that kind of attitude is partially the cause of our chronic unemployment.

I get where you're coming from, but I'm not sure how fair it is to expect people to be able to move freely considering relationships, family, etc.

How much change is involved in moving from one state to another? My impression of the US is that the states can be very different from one another and not only when it comes to culture.

[Ominous Gamer]

How much change is involved in moving from one state to another? My impression of the US is that the states can be very different from one another and not only when it comes to culture.

They are, to the point that sometimes you can't even take your car with you.
There is also the fact that few families have enough saved up to make a trip like this. A Penske truck to move Brandy's family was almost a grand for 4 days and 500 miles of travel. Then you have to figure in new housing, school requirements, etc... There is nothing more awesome than trying to sell a house you're underwater with, or getting approved for a new mortgage after you defaulted on your last one.

----
When do you think we crossed the "make a thread" line?

[Illusions]

I wouldn't say the unemployed are lazy, but a lot of them could be working if they were less picky. There was recently an article about numerous companies in the US being unable to get enough workers (and in fact, haven't seen the number of applications increase since the recession started), because people aren't willing to change industries, move to a different state, or take a major pay cut.

Because, to different degrees at least, these things are costly. Like how OG outlined moving can be costly, and if you're out of work and don't have the proper funds saved up to do so, very difficult. In addition changing industries also costs time and money if that industry does not have an overlap with what your background is in. A major pay cut also may be problematic, as taking that cut may not allow them to cover all their expenses (however they should probably look at the fact that making some money is still better than making no money).

[Loki]

I get where you're coming from, but I'm not sure how fair it is to expect people to be able to move freely considering relationships, family, etc.

How much change is involved in moving from one state to another? My impression of the US is that the states can be very different from one another and not only when it comes to culture.

Do people have a right to expect to get a job of their choice in the city of their choice?

You get differences between states, but you also get differences between cities and between neighborhoods. If people truly needed a job, they'd ignore those differences. Unless you're moving from New York City to some rural town in Georgia (what are the odds the latter would have jobs?), you're not going to feel too much of a difference. Plus no one said people have to move from one extreme to the other. There are plenty of states that are broadly similar.

Because, to different degrees at least, these things are costly. Like how OG outlined moving can be costly, and if you're out of work and don't have the proper funds saved up to do so, very difficult. In addition changing industries also costs time and money if that industry does not have an overlap with what your background is in. A major pay cut also may be problematic, as taking that cut may not allow them to cover all their expenses (however they should probably look at the fact that making some money is still better than making no money).

If you're moving to another city/state, you should make sure that your expected expenses can be covered by your new job. It also wouldn't be the worst idea to get a loan for the relocation. Spending a few thousand to get a job that pays many times that isn't exactly a bad investment.

[Aimless]

Do people have a right to expect to get a job of their choice in the city of their choice?

At the very least they should get a fair shot at finding a job that doesn't necessitate being uprooted from their present lives on short notice.

You get differences between states, but you also get differences between cities and between neighborhoods. If people truly needed a job, they'd ignore those differences. Unless you're moving from New York City to some rural town in Georgia (what are the odds the latter would have jobs?), you're not going to feel too much of a difference. Plus no one said people have to move from one extreme to the other. There are plenty of states that are broadly similar.

Even a move to a culturally similar region can be a daunting prospect, unless you have no attachments (partner, children, sick mum ) and even then you may be going to a place where you have no network to speak of.

People weigh pros and cons even when they "truly need" something. I'm sure a lot of people could and should move to get a job, and perhaps some of them do move; but I think that many stay put simply because it's worth putting off a move for as long as possible for more than just financial reasons. I may be talking out of my ass but I think OG's and Illusions's posts bear me out.

[Loki]

At the very least they should get a fair shot at finding a job that doesn't necessitate being uprooted from their present lives on short notice.

And what does a "fair shot" entail when the kind of job they used to work in no longer exists in their city/state?

People weigh pros and cons even when they "truly need" something. I'm sure a lot of people could and should move to get a job, and perhaps some of them do move; but I think that many stay put simply because it's worth putting off a move for as long as possible for more than just financial reasons. I may be talking out of my ass but I think OG's and Illusions's posts bear me out.

Yes, people are overly optimistic. They don't want a radical change in their life as long as they expect their old job to come back to them. And so they lie to themselves about the prospects of that happening. First, it's "I'll get a similar job in a month", which then turns into 3 months, 6 months, a year, 2 years, etc.

[Illusions]

If you're moving to another city/state, you should make sure that your expected expenses can be covered by your new job. It also wouldn't be the worst idea to get a loan for the relocation. Spending a few thousand to get a job that pays many times that isn't exactly a bad investment.

You can get a loan for relocation? It just seemed like one of those things that the bank would laugh at you for (this is from my assumption that part of getting a loan from a bank is providing justification for them giving the loan, in a manner that would imply that you'd be able to pay it back).

[Khendraja'aro]

Do people have a right to expect to get a job of their choice in the city of their choice?

You get differences between states, but you also get differences between cities and between neighborhoods. If people truly needed a job, they'd ignore those differences. Unless you're moving from New York City to some rural town in Georgia (what are the odds the latter would have jobs?), you're not going to feel too much of a difference. Plus no one said people have to move from one extreme to the other. There are plenty of states that are broadly similar.

That's you as a single speaking. Try moving with a family with 2 kids when you have no money due to being out of a job. Then it's a completely different story.

[Ominous Gamer]

That leads to another problem. If the husband loses work, but the wife doesn't... then what? You're not going to uproot the family, and throw away a good job, just for the chance that the husband will find work somewhere else.


*not attempting to be sexist