Board index › Coping in life › Work and finding a Job

f***ing low wages low hours... f*ck capitalism

Page 3 of 10 [ 159 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,569
Location: the island of defective toy santas

11 Oct 2013, 5:18 pm

(clicky)interesting article- does America really need its homeless?
the gist of the article is that the rich serve as the carrot [positive example] and the homeless the stick [negative example] in our incentive-based economy and culture, and that without the threat of very real destitution and oblivion, the remnant of the middle class would not work as hard as they do, which makes their upperclass overseers richer, of course. so that is why this injustice is allowed to stand for as long as it has. America's rate of homelessness exceeds that of all other western advanced democracies. this article purports to explain why.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

11 Oct 2013, 5:23 pm

auntblabby wrote:
(clicky)interesting article- does America really need its homeless?
the gist of the article is that the rich serve as the carrot [positive example] and the homeless the stick [negative example] in our incentive-based economy and culture, and that without the threat of very real destitution and oblivion, the remnant of the middle class would not work as hard as they do, which makes their upperclass overseers richer, of course. so that is why this injustice is allowed to stand for as long as it has. America's rate of homelessness exceeds that of all other western advanced democracies. this article purports to explain why.


I think threats of bad things happening to us are simply part and parcel of life. No matter how nice the boss, there is always the implicit threat that we can be terminated. With the police there is always the threat that we can be arrested, and even here at WP, step out of line and there is always the threat we can be banned. That's part of life.

What isn't an inevitable part of life is the government allowing the elites to offshore jobs and flood the country with immigrants to drive down our wages, and make their profits go through the roof. The proof? Americans haven't had a raise in forty years now, despite huge gains in productivity. But the wealthy are doing very well indeed.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,569
Location: the island of defective toy santas

11 Oct 2013, 5:29 pm

the reason all the commonwealth nations raised steep emigration rules [must have high net worth and college degree] uniquely to americans, is to protect themselves from hordes of the desperate poor yanks arriving in boats and sneaking across borders. this started after Reagan was elected.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

11 Oct 2013, 5:41 pm

auntblabby wrote:
the reason all the commonwealth nations raised steep emigration rules [must have high net worth and college degree] uniquely to americans, is to protect themselves from hordes of the desperate poor yanks arriving in boats and sneaking across borders. this started after Reagan was elected.


Blabby, I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. If you are talking about the Britain, they are being inundated, as some Brits on this website would be happy to describe in great detail. But they are not Americans. We have the same problems. The old communist countries had to have walls to keep their own people in; we need walls to keep people out. Otherwise, there would be no issue with illegal immigration.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,569
Location: the island of defective toy santas

11 Oct 2013, 5:53 pm

the commonwealth wants to keep us out also, unless we have lots of money.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

11 Oct 2013, 6:01 pm

auntblabby wrote:
the commonwealth wants to keep us out also, unless we have lots of money.


Actually, with the exception of Western countries, most countries have high restrictions on immigration. For example, lots of Americans live in Mexico, but they are not citizens. And, as you said, they have to have money since Mexico does not wish to import those who will be a burden to their society. But Mexico actually naturalizes very few citizens. I read a few years back that the number of citizens naturalized by Mexico for an entire year was about two dozen. Even then, one does not have the full rights of Mexican citizenship--not being able to run for very high office, or get involved in political activities the Mexican government does not like.

As far as the Commonwealth policies on immigration, they would be pretty much the same, as they reject liberal we-are-the-world ideas. Unlike us, they put their own citizens first--again, unless the immigrant has much needed skills. So, it's not just Americans these countries want to keep out.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,569
Location: the island of defective toy santas

11 Oct 2013, 6:03 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
the commonwealth wants to keep us out also, unless we have lots of money.


Actually, with the exception of Western countries, most countries have high restrictions on immigration. For example, lots of Americans live in Mexico, but they are not citizens. And, as you said, they have to have money since Mexico does not wish to import those who will be a burden to their society. But Mexico actually naturalizes very few citizens. I read a few years back that the number of citizens naturalized by Mexico for an entire year was about two dozen. Even then, one does not have the full rights of Mexican citizenship--not being able to run for very high office, or get involved in political activities the Mexican government does not like.

As far as the Commonwealth policies on immigration, they would be pretty much the same, as they reject liberal we-are-the-world ideas. Unlike us, they put their own citizens first--again, unless the immigrant has much needed skills. So, it's not just Americans these countries want to keep out.

but I noticed the last time I was in Canada, they let it LOTS of folks from Pakistan and india.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

11 Oct 2013, 6:10 pm

auntblabby wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
the commonwealth wants to keep us out also, unless we have lots of money.


Actually, with the exception of Western countries, most countries have high restrictions on immigration. For example, lots of Americans live in Mexico, but they are not citizens. And, as you said, they have to have money since Mexico does not wish to import those who will be a burden to their society. But Mexico actually naturalizes very few citizens. I read a few years back that the number of citizens naturalized by Mexico for an entire year was about two dozen. Even then, one does not have the full rights of Mexican citizenship--not being able to run for very high office, or get involved in political activities the Mexican government does not like.

As far as the Commonwealth policies on immigration, they would be pretty much the same, as they reject liberal we-are-the-world ideas. Unlike us, they put their own citizens first--again, unless the immigrant has much needed skills. So, it's not just Americans these countries want to keep out.

but I noticed the last time I was in Canada, they let it LOTS of folks from Pakistan and india.


Yes, mass immigration is occurring in every Western country now, and no Western countries save South Africa, which is also being inundated. And in every case, it is at least ninety percent from the less developed nations and the Third World.

The pretext for this massive immigration is liberalism which on the one hand tells us we are virtuous to let them in, but on the other tells us we have a moral duty to allow mass immigration to atone for past sins, real or imagined--e.g., racism, sexism, imperialism, slavery.

But the real reason for mass immigration is that it drive down our wages, meaning business owners put more of what they make into their own pockets instead of paying marketplace rates for wages.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,569
Location: the island of defective toy santas

11 Oct 2013, 6:15 pm

:idea: aha :idea:



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

11 Oct 2013, 6:19 pm

auntblabby wrote:
:idea: aha :idea:


If you are interested, there is a very good website that discusses immigration from an intelligent, fact-oriented perspective. I will say this site is conservative, or rather paleoconservative, as opposed to the neoconservatism that has hegemony over the entire modern conservative movement, or what this site calls Conservatism Inc.: vdare.com



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,569
Location: the island of defective toy santas

11 Oct 2013, 6:24 pm

that is a very controversial website, for sure!



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

11 Oct 2013, 6:39 pm

auntblabby wrote:
that is a very controversial website, for sure!


I've read it regularly for years and have always found it to be factual and civil. Again, the reason it is "controversial" is because the elites who are getting filthy rich off of open borders. Naturally, they are going to oppose anybody who wishes the borders to be closed, and by any legal means available, including what more honorable people would consider defamation of character.

But if you do care to take a look, and find something that is either untrue or against the tenets of basic decency, let me know and we can both avoid it in the future.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,569
Location: the island of defective toy santas

11 Oct 2013, 6:40 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
that is a very controversial website, for sure!


I've read it regularly for years and have always found it to be factual and civil. Again, the reason it is "controversial" is because the elites who are getting filthy rich off of open borders. Naturally, they are going to oppose anybody who wishes the borders to be closed, and by any legal means available, including what more honorable people would consider defamation of character.

But if you do care to take a look, and find something that is either untrue or against the tenets of basic decency, let me know and we can both avoid it in the future.

steve sailor's comment about how blacks need more supervision would be a starting point.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

11 Oct 2013, 6:46 pm

I would like to see what he actually wrote to discuss the matter intelligently. There are things Sailer has written I disagree with, but the breadth of his knowledge and intellect is simply astounding.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,569
Location: the island of defective toy santas

11 Oct 2013, 6:49 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
I would like to see what he actually wrote to discuss the matter intelligently. There are things Sailer has written I disagree with, but the breadth of his knowledge and intellect is simply astounding.

the wiki cliffnotes version, below-

Hurricane Katrina and IQ

Steve Sailer argued on VDARE following Hurricane Katrina that the lower average IQ of African-Americans found in intelligence research correlates with "poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups resulting in the need for stricter moral guidance from society." He said that looting after the 1995 Kobe earthquake was minimal because "when you get down to it, Japanese aren't blacks."[17]
John Podhoretz called Sailer's comments racist.[18] Sailer responded that his accusers admitted a correlation between low IQ and poor judgment by supporting the Supreme Court's 2002 Atkins v. Virginia decision "that, in effect, banned the death penalty for killers with IQs under 70."[19] John Derbyshire defended Sailer, citing large variance in incarceration rates by race and birth rates for unmarried women by race.[20]
According to Peter Brimelow, Sailer's original article has been emailed out by readers (through the link to "email [this article] to a friend") at among the highest volumes seen by VDARE's articles.[21] Sailer also responded to John Podhoretz in "Podhoretz, Junior vs. Steve Sailer",[22] by quoting from a 1963 Commentary essay by Podhoretz's father, Norman, "My Negro Problem—and Ours",[23] in which Norman Podhoretz made statements on black violence in character with Sailer's.

IMHO, mr. sailer was guilty of not having tact.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

11 Oct 2013, 6:54 pm

auntblabby wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
I would like to see what he actually wrote to discuss the matter intelligently. There are things Sailer has written I disagree with, but the breadth of his knowledge and intellect is simply astounding.

the wiki cliffnotes version, below-

Hurricane Katrina and IQ

Steve Sailer argued on VDARE following Hurricane Katrina that the lower average IQ of African-Americans found in intelligence research correlates with "poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups resulting in the need for stricter moral guidance from society." He said that looting after the 1995 Kobe earthquake was minimal because "when you get down to it, Japanese aren't blacks."[17]
John Podhoretz called Sailer's comments racist.[18] Sailer responded that his accusers admitted a correlation between low IQ and poor judgment by supporting the Supreme Court's 2002 Atkins v. Virginia decision "that, in effect, banned the death penalty for killers with IQs under 70."[19] John Derbyshire defended Sailer, citing large variance in incarceration rates by race and birth rates for unmarried women by race.[20]
According to Peter Brimelow, Sailer's original article has been emailed out by readers (through the link to "email [this article] to a friend") at among the highest volumes seen by VDARE's articles.[21] Sailer also responded to John Podhoretz in "Podhoretz, Junior vs. Steve Sailer",[22] by quoting from a 1963 Commentary essay by Podhoretz's father, Norman, "My Negro Problem—and Ours",[23] in which Norman Podhoretz made statements on black violence in character with Sailer's.


Which of these contentions, which are all accurate and true as far as I can tell, do you disagree with?