One thing that bugged me about Idiocracy

[DSMatticus]

get a college education. government will loan you money to pay for it.

Stupid beyond fucking words. Here's a statistical truth that turns this genius idea up on its head: being malnourished correlates with reduced I.Q. Going to a poorer school correlates with a worse education post high-school. Having a worse education correlates with a reduced chance of college acceptance. Or loan/scholarship acceptance. Or succeeding in college. And there are a few dozen more.

I'm sorry, but that was a fucking stupid thing to say. You're just statistically, objectively wrong, and if you're going to make bullshit claims at least make them ones that are difficult to refute. This is just you sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "LALALA, I DON'T WANT TO KNOW HOW THE WORLD WORKS," so you can keep believing objectively false statements that allow you to hold onto the worldview you're comfortable with. Fuck that.

Edit, also:

competition for labor and/or unionization.

You do realize labor is post-scarcity right? It's called China. Or India. Labor is fucking cheap because the planet's population is abundant.

Seriously, this idea only works if there are more jobs than there are people to fill those jobs. But we have unemployment, so this is an obviously false statement.

For someone who has no job, a job below minimum wage is an improvement. Turning it down is turning down being able to pay their rent and buy food. Which means if you walk away on 'principle' (the job isn't paying enough), you'd better hope there's no one behind you waiting in line desperate enough to take the job. Except there always will be for untrained labor, from now until the end of time. This is a fact of the world we live in now. There are a shit ton of people, and untrained labor is effectively post scarcity for most job markets. Trained labor would go that way too, if it weren't for the educational institutions artificially adding value to degrees by adding expense to requiring them. And you seem to be bitching about those institutions, too.

So yes, you can have an America that works like you describe. It would be a third world country for everyone but the rich, and it would be a shithole. I am not impressed.

[Vnonymous]

Poverty isn't built into "our system" it is built into the entire fucking universe. There are going to be people better off and there are going to be people worse off. That's a fact and it is never going to change - even when we hit a singularity or whatever and everyone has the same amount of resources, people are different enough that there still won't be equality. You are never going to not have people who are worse off than others. That's just how the world works. There are always going to be people on top and people on bottom.

Now, we should endeavour to make the position of those on bottom not complete fucking arse. The people on the bottom comprise the majority of humanity, and it is only if they are relatively happy that the people on top get to do fucking anything. A lot of childish 14 year olds and eugenecists like to forget the fact that it is only by virtue of the existence of the masses that you can have super smart people and academics and intellectuals and artists. And really, if the masses are unhappy then shit starts to get bad for the "elite" pretty fucking soon after.

[PhoneLobster]

So then Vynonymous you are basically suggesting the entire Universe is a failed 3rd world nation and about half the EU is basically an impossible imaginary dream.

Nice argument.

[Swordslinger]

You're better off actually having government funded free abortion clinics

ahahaha your dreams of a socialist abortion mill will never come to fruition in america

Yeah, I know. But that's a better way of handling things. Discourage having children and allow for free chemical abortions (which are relatively cheap compared to full blown sterilization surgery).

[Psychic Robot]

I find it mildly hilarious that you think you could possibly defend against someone like me. If I wanted to kill you, you have 2 choices: Never leave your house or die.

That's it. There's no defense against people who want to kill you and know where you are (beyond hiding) in a "free" america. Killing you and taking your stuff would be laughably easy. Avoiding someone else doing the same to me? Kinda impossible.

rofl keep thinking that. news flash: you're just a nerd on an internet forum. you are completely powerless.

[Psychic Robot]

Stupid beyond fucking words.

you're an idiot. it's not hard to get a government loan to pay for college. not that the government should be handing out loans to pay for college, but it does, and you can take advantage of it.

You do realize labor is post-scarcity right? It's called China. Or India. Labor is fucking cheap because the planet's population is abundant.

Seriously, this idea only works if there are more jobs than there are people to fill those jobs. But we have unemployment, so this is an obviously false statement. it works as long as there is competition in the market for those jobs. unemployment does not always equate to starving people desperate for work

For someone who has no job, a job below minimum wage is an improvement. that is correct. strangely enough, raising minimum wage increases unemployment. why do you hate the poor? DSMatticus? (see I can play retard too) Turning it down is turning down being able to pay their rent and buy food. Which means if you walk away on 'principle' (the job isn't paying enough), you'd better hope there's no one behind you waiting in line desperate enough to take the job. Except there always will be for untrained labor, from now until the end of time. This is a fact of the world we live in now. There are a shit ton of people, and untrained labor is effectively post scarcity for most job markets. Trained labor would go that way too, if it weren't for the educational institutions artificially adding value to degrees by adding expense to requiring them. And you seem to be bitching about those institutions, too.

So yes, you can have an America that works like you describe. It would be a third world country for everyone but the rich, and it would be a shithole. I am not impressed. stop being a ragetard, people can unionize if they want.

[Kaelik]

Aside from your usual bullshit PR, people cannot in fact unionize if the want. If the government does not mandate and enforce recognition of unions, unions do not exist.

In good old "right to work" states every single company without fail has a stipulation that the will not hire anyone who is a member of the union, and that joining a union is grounds for termination.

[Psychic Robot]

If the government does not mandate and enforce recognition of unions, unions do not exist.

right which is why unions never existed before fdr got into office

In good old "right to work" states every single company without fail has a stipulation that the will not hire anyone who is a member of the union, and that joining a union is grounds for termination.

whose fault is it that the union is a piece of shit? the workers themselves obviously

[Vnonymous]

So then Vynonymous you are basically suggesting the entire Universe is a failed 3rd world nation and about half the EU is basically an impossible imaginary dream.

Nice argument.

Modern western lifestyles with their incredibly conspicuous consumption are only possible due to the exploitation of less fortunate countries. This isn't exactly rocket science.

And yes, the entire universe is a "failed 3rd world nation". It is impossible for things or people to be equal. There are only so many resources in the world, and some people are going to have better access to, more usage of and better utilisation of them. Some people are born smarter than others and can adjust to modern life easier than others.

[DSMatticus]

you're an idiot. it's not hard to get a government loan to pay for college. not that the government should be handing out loans to pay for college, but it does, and you can take advantage of it.

This refutes absolutely nothing I've said. Poverty means a worse high-school education, a worse chance of getting accepted into college, a worse chance of getting those loans, and a worse chance of actually succeeding at college.

But here, let's keep it simple. I want you to answer one simple question: does someone from a lower class family have the same opportunity to get into and succeed in colleges as someone from a middle or upper class family?

If your answer is 'no,' you're living in a fantasy world even more ridiculous than D&D. If your answer is 'yes,' you're admitting poverty will statistically beget poverty. Pick your poison.

it works as long as there is competition in the market for those jobs. unemployment does not always equate to starving people desperate for work

Do you not get this? If there is someone who can take that job, but is unemployed (and looking at an extended period of unemployment), they will do so.

If the supply of labor is low, the price of labor goes up. If the supply of labor is high, the price of labor goes down. This is economics 101. It turns out the supply of labor is higher than it has ever been in history (there are a shit ton of people on the planet). It also turns out the demand for it is going down (automation, improved business practices). This works in tandem to provide you with absolutely worthless labor.

Your idea for why unemployment won't combine with no minimum wage to send wages spiralling down to subsistence levels is... what exactly? Seriously, explain why. Competition? This is an untrained labor market we're talking about - you aren't valuable. Anyone can do your job. Very few people are skilled enough that they actually care whether you, individually, stay with them or not.

As for the trained labor market, it turns out the more you take the bottom out of the untrained market, the trained one tends to follow it down. So even if you say, "I'm okay with our untrained laborers living like third world citizens as long as the middle class is first world," that's not what will happen.

stop being a ragetard, people can unionize if they want.

Okay, look, you're a moron. I guess your idea is that lots of barely getting by poor people will get together and say, "treat us better or we won't work," and hope that they will all stick together without any government backing or protection. Including the people who were unemployed before, and now see open job opportunities from the mass layoffs related to the unions causing people to quit.

Here's a tip for you: unions only have bargaining power if they have something valuable to bargain with (pretty obvious, right?) If labor is abundant, their labor won't be the valuable thing they have to bargain with, and if labor is all they have in that case, they fucking fail. Hard. Which is why we legally recognize unions and give them protections in most places. Because it actually gives them the power to help the people in them.

Seriously, all your arguments for "why the labor market won't spiral down into third world levels" is because "labor will be valuable," even though simple economics tells us it wouldn't be.

[PhoneLobster]

Modern western lifestyles with their incredibly conspicuous consumption...

You are mixing up the USA with "the modern west".

These are not the same thing.

Stop being so painfully stupid.

[tzor]

MY FUCKING GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You guys don't know how the system works. None of you [claim to] have any experience with what it actually takes to get on TANF, stay on TANF, or even what TANF regulations are.

I don't think I was commenting on TANF, but I didn't even know what TANF stood for. (TANF was created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act instituted under President Bill Clinton in 1996.)

I think most people confuse it with the previous program Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). It is difficult to know (especially post 2008 crisis) if the reforms were as good as they initially appeared to be, but clearly TANF had major advantages over AFDC.

Personally, TANF looks like, on the surface, a good thing.

[tzor]

Aside from your usual bullshit PR, people cannot in fact unionize if the want. If the government does not mandate and enforce recognition of unions, unions do not exist.

Total half crap. The necessary requirement for the environment for the creation of a union is not the recognition of the union; it's the recognition of the strike. Otherwise, the union has no power whatsoever. (Government unions are totally separate since they basically can influence the goverment's board of directors, unlike a private sector union.)

[tzor]

This refutes absolutely nothing I've said. Poverty means a worse high-school education, a worse chance of getting accepted into college, a worse chance of getting those loans, and a worse chance of actually succeeding at college.

But here, let's keep it simple. I want you to answer one simple question: does someone from a lower class family have the same opportunity to get into and succeed in colleges as someone from a middle or upper class family?

Close, Poverty (that is to say the real thing) can mean a far worse than high-school education. At the far bad side it means functionally illiteracy which is almost a sentence to perpetual poverty and victimization. At the other side it can mean a vastly sub-standard education and a significant pressure at the local community college level to do what should have been done at the high school level ... in a system that demands cost be kept damn low to get these students in the first place.

So let's get to the question. It all depends on "lower class" family. The magic employment wheel doesn't work like you think it does. It's not location, location, location. It's major, major, major. Choose wisely and you will do well out of the gate. Choose poorly and you're screwed.

Community/local state colleges can sometimes give you a better start out of the starting block than the Ivy league colleges, if you choose your major wisely. Depending on your location (county/state), you could do damn well.

[Psychic Robot]

If your answer is 'no,' you're living in a fantasy world even more ridiculous than D&D. If your answer is 'yes,' you're admitting poverty will statistically beget poverty. Pick your poison.

of course someone who is not in an affluent family will have fewer opportunities than someone who is but the point is that someone who is determined to succeed will succeed as long as he's not marketing bulletball.

seriously it's not that hard to become a manager, and even managers at mcdonald's can take in 30-40k per year.

Do you not get this? If there is someone who can take that job, but is unemployed (and looking at an extended period of unemployment), they will do so.

no shit sherlock. the point is that fewer barriers to entry into the market will create more jobs because there will be more people willing to take that risk.

Your idea for why unemployment won't combine with no minimum wage to send wages spiralling down to subsistence levels is... what exactly? Seriously, explain why. Competition? This is an untrained labor market we're talking about - you aren't valuable. Anyone can do your job. Very few people are skilled enough that they actually care whether you, individually, stay with them or not.

actually no you're retarded. even walmart pays above minimum wage so stop being a moron. market value might be ridiculously low but it is in fact above minimum wage. and if you want to debate minimum wage please take it to another thread kthx.

Okay, look, you're a moron. I guess your idea is that lots of barely getting by poor people will get together and say, "treat us better or we won't work," and hope that they will all stick together without any government backing or protection. Including the people who were unemployed before, and now see open job opportunities from the mass layoffs related to the unions causing people to quit.

if you're not willing to fight for something then you don't deserve it.

also to bring this full circle, this sort of mess was created because shitty government policies gave the boys on top preferential treatment allowing them to expand and grow at unprecedented rates while those at the bottom were stifled. good work.

anyway america is basically fucked anyhow, like I said we're looking at a collapse and then probably european-style socialism so you'll be getting your wish in a few years.

[DSMatticus]

affluent family will have fewer opportunities than someone who is but the point is that someone who is determined to succeed will succeed as long as he's not marketing bulletball.

And now you're admitting poverty begets poverty and then contradicting yourself. You can't have it both ways.

fewer barriers to entry into the market will create more jobs because there will be more people willing to take that risk.

Jobs are based on demand for those jobs, not less entry risk. You're completely confusing supply and demand - jobs follow the demand. Being able to afford to hire more people is meaningless, if you can't find anything to employ them to do because everyone is too poor to buy anymore of your products.

You're also completely failing to account for or discuss what value those jobs have. Even if this did create more jobs (it won't) it will lower the wages of all those jobs to third world levels.

even walmart pays above minimum wage so stop being a moron.

... What the fuck are you even talking about? Of course they fucking do - we currently have regulations that force them to. You're talking about letting the labor market fend for itself, and I'm telling you why that's stupid. Pointing out, "well, it's doing just fine now!" is a retarded thing to say and it makes my point, if nothing else. The market value of that labor without minimum wage laws would be significantly less.

if you're not willing to fight for something then you don't deserve it.

Are you fucking serious? This isn't... anything. This is not a valid argument. What the fuck is 'deserves?' What about you makes you more deserving of food, shelter, and internet than children in third world Africa? The fact that you were born here? Spoiler: no.

Deserve is a stupid fucking buzzword that doesn't mean anything and you can shove it up your ass for trying to use it to make desperate, underprivileged people sound like the bad guys for not being able to get by.

also to bring this full circle, this sort of mess was created because shitty government policies gave the boys on top preferential treatment allowing them to expand and grow at unprecedented rates while those at the bottom were stifled.

Yeah, this is just historically and economically inaccurate. In a capitalist society, money is power. This is just a fact. The boys on top get preferential treatment because that's the way capitalism works. The government doesn't have to get involved, but it has, and in some cases it's made things worse, and in some cases it's made things better. But if your assertion is that, "let it all fend for itself!" you'd be trading government authority for corporate authority, and that's not a net-win. At all. It turns out that's a net loss, because government has to at least pretend to answer to the people. Corporations answer to their own wallets.

[Psychic Robot]

And now you're admitting poverty begets poverty and then contradicting yourself. You can't have it both ways.

no see what I'm saying is that poor people are at a disadvantage in comparison to affluent people, but you're weeping that there's no way out of the vicious cycle of poverty. main reason that poverty "begets" poverty is because poor people have bad ideas with regard to money and don't teach their children how to delay gratification. instead they put up the new big screen tv on the credit card because hey no money down right?

Jobs are based on demand for those jobs, not less entry risk.

except people are more likely to start their own businesses when their are lower barriers to entry in the job market, thereby creating jobs.

The market value of that labor without minimum wage laws would be significantly less.

that doesnt make sense. by your reasoning walmart should be paying minimum wage and not a cent more. but in fact walmart does pay more than minimum wage, so you're wrong

Are you fucking serious? This isn't... anything. This is not a valid argument. What the fuck is 'deserves?' What about you makes you more deserving of food, shelter, and internet than children in third world Africa? The fact that you were born here? Spoiler: no.

Deserve is a stupid fucking buzzword that doesn't mean anything and you can shove it up your ass for trying to use it to make desperate, underprivileged people sound like the bad guys for not being able to get by.

lol

classic liberalism right there: "the poor are too stupid and incompetent to do things themselves, so we need the government to do it for them."

Yeah, this is just historically and economically inaccurate. In a capitalist society, money is power. This is just a fact. The boys on top get preferential treatment because that's the way capitalism works. The government doesn't have to get involved, but it has, and in some cases it's made things worse, and in some cases it's made things better. But if your assertion is that, "let it all fend for itself!" you'd be trading government authority for corporate authority, and that's not a net-win. At all. It turns out that's a net loss, because government has to at least pretend to answer to the people. Corporations answer to their own wallets.

no see I'll explain this using contemporary politics:

1. obama passes health care mandate forcing businesses to buy health insurance for their employees and regulating how that health insurance should work

2. some large business like mcdonald's is pissed because fuck that they don't want to pay for health insurance. meanwhile mom and pop store don't have nearly as much cash as mcdonald's and are going to have to cut hours to pay for more expensive health insurance

3. mcdonald's says fuck you to the law and demands a waiver. mom and pop ask for a waiver.

4. government grants mcdonald's a waiver and ignores mom and pop because mom and pop don't have $$$

5. mcdonald's chugs along at full steam while mom and pop struggle to keep their business going.

gee you see how that might inhibit competition and secure corporate power? no you don't because you are dumb

[sabs]

Waivers for the Healthcare bill are stupid. Either everyone has to provide healthcare for their employees, or noone does.

None of this bullshit, "aww, it's too hard for you, well okay..you get a waiver, if you give me a nice campaign contribution."

[Fuchs]

Health care should be mandatory, unless you like letting poor people die.

It works relatively well in switzerland, and I haven't seen anyone claim we're socialist or poor.

Incidentally, we also have a semi-direct democracy, where the majority of the people and the cantons can alter the constitution, and it only takes 100'000 citizens to force such a vote. And it only takes 50'000 citizens to force a veto vote for any law passed by parliament.

While not perfect it does make lobbying a lot harder - you don't have to just convince a member of parliament, but the majority of the voters, so laws are more often passed with regards to how the people would vote.

[DSMatticus]

main reason that poverty "begets" poverty is because poor people have bad ideas with regard to money and don't teach their children how to delay gratification.

It seriously doesn't fucking matter why. It simply does, and that's the point. They are disadvantaged. They are less educated. They do not have an equivalent number of opportunities. They are statistically more prone to failure through no fault of their own (unless you think being born into an irresponsible family and ergo learning irresponsible behaviors is their fault).

except people are more likely to start their own businesses when their are lower barriers to entry in the job market, thereby creating jobs.

No. The same reason you wouldn't hire to expand an existing service is the same reason you wouldn't start a new business: if there's no market for it, it doesn't work. And the 'barrier' to entering a market is the billion dollar competitor who has them locked out.

that doesnt make sense. by your reasoning walmart should be paying minimum wage and not a cent more. but in fact walmart does pay more than minimum wage, so you're wrong

No, that wouldn't follow from my reasoning at all. I'm absolutely certain the average wage is higher than minimum wage. We have civil protections and unions with legal authority and all kinds of things in place that strongly encourage walmart to limit how much they screw over their employees, not to mention it's virtually unheard of that no one gets pay raises.

Here's a question: if we dropped the minimum wage, what do you think would happen to the wages of Wal-Mart employees? Do you think they'd stick where they are? I'm gonna guess you'd say no, and that should make it obvious that minimum wage is in fact doing something.

classic liberalism right there: "the poor are too stupid and incompetent to do things themselves, so we need the government to do it for them."

Is this anyway relevant to any discussion? There's literally no point there except to try and imply helping people in poverty is condescending, and therefore bad and we shouldn't do it, which is a stupid as fuck thing to try and do.

But you are apparently living in a fairy tale fantasyland where hardwork and dedication totally save the day and change your life. You watch too many movies. That is a stupid thing to believe.

no see I'll explain this using contemporary politics:

This is a lovely example that doesn't change the fact that capitalist societies already concentrate wealth together, no government aid needed. It's in the fucking name: capitalism. Capital generates wealth. Having more capital means you can economically bludgeon other people with your capitalistic advantage.

There is pretty much no place on Earth where a lack of regulation has gone well. Feel free to point one out. (I can name plenty of places you would probably call 'socialist' that thrash us in pretty much every measure.)

[K]

except people are more likely to start their own businesses when their are lower barriers to entry in the job market, thereby creating jobs.

No. The same reason you wouldn't hire to expand an existing service is the same reason you wouldn't start a new business: if there's no market for it, it doesn't work. And the 'barrier' to entering a market is the billion dollar competitor who has them locked out.

It also requires capital to start a business. You know, capital.... the thing that by definition poor people don't have because they are poor.

So even assuming that there is demand and a potential small business model for your potential skillset, you are a fucked as a poor person. The fact that you are completely locked out of any large business model is just icing on the cake.

[Draco_Argentum]

I find it mildly hilarious that you think you could possibly defend against someone like me. If I wanted to kill you, you have 2 choices: Never leave your house or die.

That's it. There's no defense against people who want to kill you and know where you are (beyond hiding) in a "free" america. Killing you and taking your stuff would be laughably easy. Avoiding someone else doing the same to me? Kinda impossible.

rofl keep thinking that. news flash: you're just a nerd on an internet forum. you are completely powerless.

Can't believe people are buying the PR troll still. PR is not stupid enough to believe molotov cocktails don't exist.

[CatharzGodfoot]

[PhoneLobster]

It works relatively well in switzerland, and I haven't seen anyone claim we're socialist...

You should really travel. It's lots of fun.

[tzor]

no see what I'm saying is that poor people are at a disadvantage in comparison to affluent people, but you're weeping that there's no way out of the vicious cycle of poverty. main reason that poverty "begets" poverty is because poor people have bad ideas with regard to money and don't teach their children how to delay gratification. instead they put up the new big screen tv on the credit card because hey no money down right?

That's not unique to people in poverty. Most professional football players can't handle their initial incomes and send what they get and then some, going into debt in the process.

And it's also common among the young. My father used to constantly complain and gribe about the expensive brands of beer bottles he saw at the beach; back in his day they drank the "cheap stuff" because it was all they could afford.