The "Age of America" About to End?

[sigmtnman]

and Atlas just shrugged...

How many people should I be forced at gunpoint to support? The harder I work, the more it should be? If I have an hourly job that I choose to work as much overtime as I can and have no private life, should I have to support even more people I don't know?

It's called property rights. My time is my property and the government has no business taking my time and giving it to someone else.

As far as the karate kid goes, I would argue it's far easier than people think to be successful. It's amazing to me how little effort I see people put into stuff and how far they get. It just takes desire and lack of feeling like a victim. Sure you can bust your ass, but if you allow yourself to be victimized, you tend to not recognize and/or take advantage of opportunities. Fear of everything, victimization, laziness, tv and the multi-national corporate person are America's biggest problems.

Everyone wants their money for nothing and their chicks for free.

[Guest ab28]

and Atlas just shrugged...

How many people should I be forced at gunpoint to support? The harder I work, the more it should be? If I have an hourly job that I choose to work as much overtime as I can and have no private life, should I have to support even more people I don't know?

It's called property rights. My time is my property and the government has no business taking my time and giving it to someone else.

As far as the karate kid goes, I would argue it's far easier than people think to be successful. It's amazing to me how little effort I see people put into stuff and how far they get. It just takes desire and lack of feeling like a victim. Sure you can bust your ass, but if you allow yourself to be victimized, you tend to not recognize and/or take advantage of opportunities. Fear of everything, victimization, laziness, tv and the multi-national corporate person are America's biggest problems.

Everyone wants their money for nothing and their chicks for free.

I am referring to people that are working, and still get nothing. As for Ayn Rand, her ideals are just as pie in the sky as rainbow wearing hippies. If her version of the economy was true, life would be slavery and hell on earth for 98% of the population, with a few hugely wealthy people controlling everything.

Edited April 26, 2011 by ab28

[Caster]

At a basic job(McD's, 40 hrs a week, or waitressing), people should be able to have a place to rent(small apt), decent food(not processed garbage), and basic healthcare(anything besides a major injury). This is bare minimum. There are plenty of unskilled people with no other options. I do not believe in income equality. I just think someone that has a basic job should at least be able to afford the basics..

Why? Why is it that 40 hours labor grants you access to these things? Let's watch a rerun of Little House on the Prairie. How long and how hard did Charles Ingalls work for a shack cabin of rough cut lumber, a bag of flour meal and oil, some caps and BP for his muzzle loader [he couldn't afford a cartridge gun] so they could have meat, and what? Once a year the kids could have a penny sack of candy and Caroline could have bottle of Lemon Verbena so she could smell nice??? He worked sun up to sun down, rain or shine, snow and ice. I figure 12-14 hours a day he was a God fearing man and kept a sabbath day so that puts him at 72-84 hours a week, and many a time he worked well on into the night so figure he averaged 75-100 hours a week. I doubt he got time and a half for anything over 40 and he was just happy old man Hanson had some work at the mill for him. Dr. Baker didn't take Tenncare that would cost him real cash or a basket of eggs.

Why is it any different now? Because we are SOOOOO [sarcasm dripping] much more advanced as a civilization. PPpfffttt, that's buffalo bagels. We're worse off now than we ever were then.

I know we have several here that don't like mixing religion into these discussions, but I bet even the nonbeliever can appreciate - You live by the sweat of your brow.

[sigmtnman]

I am referring to people that are working, and still get nothing. As for Ayn Rand, her ideals are just as pie in the sky as rainbow wearing hippies. If her version of the economy was true, life would be slavery and hell on earth for 98% of the population, with a few hugely wealthy people controlling everything.

Sorry, my comment was not directed to you and I hadn't even read your post before I posted.

It was to the general idea of redistribution of wealth. If you are having problems paying your bills, it's most likely due to the recent inflation and that is your governments fault.

Ayn Rands ideas were fairly basic and I would bet a donut you never read the book.

Edited April 26, 2011 by sigmtnman

[Caster]

I am referring to people that are working, and still get nothing.

Yeah? That's life man. I didn't get a hand out the last time I rebuilt an engine. I spent a lot of time and did everything right, but a component failure caused me to lose the entire engine.[stupid Volkswagen] So what? There's honest to goodness volunteers that spend a lot of time doing, but get NOTHING tangible in return. That's a choice, but that's life. This shouldn't be so hard to explain and it should be even easier to understand. I dunno.

[G27]

It's amazing how people feel entitled to 'making enough to afford x or y'.

The reality is if you can't afford what you want, you either don't work enough (40 hours is nothing, ask most any business owner) or you aren't skilled enough (meaning either unskilled or your skill isn't unique, you're easy to replace). You want to make more money? Make yourself invaluable / irreplaceable to the company.

Or start your own business. Apparently some here think it's easy to do, all yachts and caviar while the hourly folks do all the work...

[sigmtnman]

they have equality in 3rd world countries. Everyone eats cow cake.

[Guest ab28]

Ayn Rands ideas were fairly basic and I would bet a donut you never read the book.

I like glazed, thanks. I have read it twice. The ideals sound good in theory, but there are too many people that would twist them for their own gain. I agree with her premise, but it wouldn't work in reality.

Edited April 26, 2011 by ab28

[sigmtnman]

You must have enjoyed it to read it twice. Can you explain what part you felt was pie in the sky? Which character would you most associate yourself with?

[Guest ab28]

You must have enjoyed it to read it twice. Can you explain what part you felt was pie in the sky? Which character would you most associate yourself with?

Her writing was kind of slow at first, but I got into it. The pie in the sky thing, one example, was Hank Rearden and his brother. Complete total polar opposites. Every character in her book was black or white, most people are a mix of different opinions. Her ideal that pure capitalism is the perfect system, the dollar sign town in the mountains. It sounded good, and I have no issue with people working for what they get. The pie in the sky part happens when she doesn't realize that unregulated capitalism is prone to crushingly abusive behaviors to make money. People aren't pure and respectful to other's rights like in her novel. I agree with the premise of "every man writing his own destiny", but the problem is, people are going to take advantage. Look at the Industrial Revolution. That is what I think of when I think how Ayn Rand's ideals would work in reality. 8 year olds in factories and coal mines, machines with no safety features, people's jaws rotting out because the company owners wanted to save a few pennies on phosphorus.

Her ideas sound great, honestly. Hank Rearden spent all his time making the metal, and it was taken in the end by the government, along with patents from other inventors. The railroad was destroyed, piece by piece. I have no issue with someone getting amazingly wealthy, I have an issue with the people at the "bottom", barely able to afford the basics, despite a full workweek.

My character was Ragnar, if I had to pick.

[gregintenn]

So, if you work hard and can't get even basic necessities, what's the point? The point of working is to earn money to buy the things you need. I am talking about basics, not buying a huge house or a BMW. At a basic job(McD's, 40 hrs a week, or waitressing), people should be able to have a place to rent(small apt), decent food(not processed garbage), and basic healthcare(anything besides a major injury). This is bare minimum. There are plenty of unskilled people with no other options. I do not believe in income equality. I just think someone that has a basic job should at least be able to afford the basics

Where do you get this? This is an arbitrary list you've concocted in your head. There is nothing in our constitution that guarantees you any of this. I'll give you a bit of advice: 40 hours a week is NOT working hard!!!

[Guest ab28]

Where do you get this? This is an arbitrary list you've concocted in your head. There is nothing in our constitution that guarantees you any of this. I'll give you a bit of advice: 40 hours a week is NOT working hard!!!

It is plenty, 5 days a week, so what would you classify as the basics, then? I wasn't talking about the constitutional guarantees, merely the expectation that if you work, you should get paid for it. What is the point of working if the money you make does nothing? Also, the constitution does not have every single topic of importance in it. This does not neglect its importance, but it's the same reason I wouldn't use a calculus textbook to read about religious issues.

Housing costs too much. I spent 2 years framing starter homes, so I do have an idea.

As a question, what do you think the minimum amount of hours someone should have to work every week should be, and what should they be able to afford? Food, healthcare, a place to live, are my basics. To afford that, how much should someone have to make?

Edited April 26, 2011 by ab28

[G27]

As a question, what do you think the minimum amount of hours someone should have to work every week should be, and what should they be able to afford? Food, healthcare, a place to live, are my basics. To afford that, how much should someone have to make?

Whatever the market dictates the cost of those products to be.

For some, that will be a few hours, for others it might be 60+ hours/week.

A guy doing unskilled work or having very basic skills probably isn't going to make much money, so it might even take two jobs. So what? Since when are people entitled to 'living on 40 hours/week'?

You may not think you have the entitlement mentality, but you do - big time.

Life isn't far, it takes what it takes.

[sigmtnman]

Easy money and inflation are what you are complaining about. Housing prices high? Blame the fannis and the fed's easy money for inflation.

[sigmtnman]

Health care cost too much because people go to the doctor for everything. There is no right to health care any more than there is a right to food or a gucci watch. You have rights from your creator to be free and to do whatever makes you happy as long as it does not hurt someone else.

As far as Hank and his brother, it's pretty common and it's a sick thing. The idea of no government is not very pie in the sky, the original constitution of the united states was little more than a court system setup to settle contract disputes, property right issues and unify for defense. The evolution of it into an onerous structure of statutory restrictions on it's citizens took many years.

Edited April 26, 2011 by sigmtnman

[Guest ab28]

Whatever the market dictates the cost of those products to be.

For some, that will be a few hours, for others it might be 60+ hours/week.

A guy doing unskilled work or having very basic skills probably isn't going to make much money, so it might even take two jobs. So what? Since when are people entitled to 'living on 40 hours/week'?

You may not think you have the entitlement mentality, but you do - big time.

Life isn't far, it takes what it takes.

Not entitlement, I just don't think people should be a slave to afford the basics. If you work 60-70 hours a week for the bare minimum, that is slavery, no matter what anyone says. The basics should be affordable at 40 hours a week. If this isn't the case, then pay needs to go up. I admit, a lot of people just waste money on stupid crap, that is why they are broke, but I personally know several people that are working more than one job, and barely making it.

Why should the rich be healthy, live in a safe neighborhood, go to great schools, ect. They are not better than anyone else. People are actually starting to get pissed off about this, not because they don't have a mansion, but because they are living in some crackhead infested trailer park, barely able to afford feeding their kids, working hard, and still not making it. The American Dream is a lie.

If people consider living with dignity and basic necessities without having to be a slave to be entitlement, we are in a world of problems. If you have to work 70 hours a week to barely make ends meet, there is no point in living.

Edited April 26, 2011 by ab28

[gregintenn]

It is plenty, 5 days a week, so what would you classify as the basics, then? I wasn't talking about the constitutional guarantees, merely the expectation that if you work, you should get paid for it. What is the point of working if the money you make does nothing? Also, the constitution does not have every single topic of importance in it. This does not neglect its importance, but it's the same reason I wouldn't use a calculus textbook to read about religious issues.

Housing costs too much. I spent 2 years framing starter homes, so I do have an idea.

As a question, what do you think the minimum amount of hours someone should have to work every week should be, and what should they be able to afford? Food, healthcare, a place to live, are my basics. To afford that, how much should someone have to make?

Whatever it takes to provide what I want my family to have. I t will be different for me than it is for you. My labor is worth what the market will bear; not some arbitrary figure you dreamed up. As far as housing costs, when we married, I found a gentleman who allowed us to live in an old house he had. In leiu of rent, I provided farm labor and we provided meals for the owner. While this was going on, we were saving for our own home. We did what it took to get what we wanted; all without a government program or regulation. 40 hours a week is something you've dreamed up on your own. It is worth nothing in and of itsself. What you do with that time is where the value comes into play.

As far as helathcare goes, I looked at the price of private insurance and decided to seek employment that included healthcare insurance. This wasn't owed to me. I didn't deserve it. It was part of the compensation package of the job I agreed to. I beg you to rethink this entitlement attitude you have.

[gregintenn]

The American Dream is a lie.

You are invited to my home. I'll show you the American dream; at least my interpretation of it. my wife and I have been willing to do what most others wouldn't for many years to obtain it, but it's ours. It did NOT come from 40 apethetic hours a week from some company who we thought owed us something.

[leroy]

Not entitlement, I just don't think people should be a slave to afford the basics. If you work 60-70 hours a week for the bare minimum, that is slavery, no matter what anyone says. The basics should be affordable at 40 hours a week. If this isn't the case, then pay needs to go up. I admit, a lot of people just waste money on stupid crap, that is why they are broke, but I personally know several people that are working more than one job, and barely making it.

Why should the rich be healthy, live in a safe neighborhood, go to great schools, ect. They are not better than anyone else. People are actually starting to get pissed off about this, not because they don't have a mansion, but because they are living in some crackhead infested trailer park, barely able to afford feeding their kids, working hard, and still not making it. The American Dream is a lie.

If people consider living with dignity and basic necessities without having to be a slave to be entitlement, we are in a world of problems. If you have to work 70 hours a week to barely make ends meet, there is no point in living.

Cant buy this one. Sounds to me like the old time 'union drivel". "Living wage", why do the "rich" do well; "they aint any better than anyone else" (...they most likely work harder than others, however...), ect. etc.

I'm old enough to remember watching both my parents work "just to make ends meet" and to give me a couple of pairs of blue jeans (...cost about $5...), a couple of oxford shirts, and one pair of penny loafers. They worked hard, but it never occured to them that working 40 hours a week was a "right". Theirs was more in the 70 to 80 hour range. I well remember going to school and working in the quarry. By wednesday evening, we usually had our 40 hours in; then we worked the other 40 from thursday thru saturday; sometimes sunday if the equipment would hold up. Otherwise we did maintenance on sunday. It can be done. It never occured to me either that just working 40 hours was an option. I was thankful to get all the hours i could work.

I've got a dear friend about my age that came over from Greece in the late 50's. He couldnt speak a lick of english when he got here, nor did he have any "special job skills". He promptly went to work (...at least 2 jobs; probably 70 or 80 hours per week...), saved his money, brought his family over one by one from Greece to this "land of opportunity" and now is a millionaire. He didnt belong to the union, nor did he apply for a "handout", nor did he bitch about working. He simply went to work. The Vietnamese did the same thing down on the gulf coast. They now own the shrimp fishing industry in Lousiania. They and my buddy did it all in one generation.

Interestin aint it?

leroy

Edited April 26, 2011 by leroy

[mav]

Not entitlement, I just don't think people should be a slave to afford the basics. If you work 60-70 hours a week for the bare minimum, that is slavery, no matter what anyone says. The basics should be affordable at 40 hours a week.

Have you ever thought about the government leaving things alone and allowing the market to be truly free? If that would happen, I bet you would see prices come down significantly to where a person who earns a lower wage would have an easier time affording the necessities.

[G27]

Not entitlement, I just don't think people should be a slave to afford the basics. If you work 60-70 hours a week for the bare minimum, that is slavery, no matter what anyone says. The basics should be affordable at 40 hours a week. If this isn't the case, then pay needs to go up. I admit, a lot of people just waste money on stupid crap, that is why they are broke, but I personally know several people that are working more than one job, and barely making it.

Hahaha, you are aware that the 40 hour work week isn't a world-wide thing, right? That people in other parts of the world work more (average work week is 50 hours in South Korea, for example), right?

Not entitlement, hilarious.

A 'work week' as we know it is a new thing, only a couple of generations old.

What on earth would you do if you lived 100 years ago? I guess you'd do what you do now - barely get by and complain about it instead of doing whatever needs to be done...

Not entitlement, why should the rich be healthy, live in a safe neighborhood, go to great schools, ect. They are not better than anyone else. People are actually starting to get pissed off about this, not because they don't have a mansion, but because they are living in some crackhead infested trailer park, barely able to afford feeding their kids, working hard, and still not making it. The American Dream is a lie.

Oh man, you couldn't be more wrong. Frankly, unless you're willing to start your own business and sink or swim on your own merit, you have no idea if the American Dream is alive or not. There are tons of us who started our own companies and have been successful by working 80 hours/week and pouring ourselves into the company rather than thinking we should be allowed to check out after 40 hours and expect a certain level of quality of life.

Expecting anything you don't earn is entitlement. Deny all you want but your posts are proof positive.

[Guest ab28]

barely get by and complain about it instead of doing whatever needs to be done...

I don't barely get by, and I don't complain. I am speaking of a deep wrongness I have noticed in society ever since I was a kid. Probably the biggest thing I hate about republicans. They think it is ok for people to be slaves for pennies, and in the same breath offer more tax cuts for the wealthy.

Oh man, you couldn't be more wrong. Frankly, unless you're willing to start your own business and sink or swim on your own merit, you have no idea if the American Dream is alive or not. There are tons of us who started our own companies and have been successful by working 80 hours/week and pouring ourselves into the company rather than thinking we should be allowed to check out after 40 hours and expect a certain level of quality of life.

No, I expect to work and have it actually worth something. If it is not, there is no point in working.

Expecting anything you don't earn is entitlement. Deny all you want but your posts are proof positive.

Well, if people work, they should be able to afford a "basic" level of life. Expecting someone to work for nothing is slavery, which is basically what you are saying. If you work 80 hours a week, you do not have time for leisure and enjoying your life. If people keep working for nothing, barely scraping by, and can't afford to go to the doctor or eat, basically slaves to the rich, that is how revolutions start. We don't live in the 14th century anymore, where you are worthless if you don't have a title and land. Private property or money does not make one person superior to another. Your things do not define who you are.

Replies in bold.

[G27]

I don't barely get by, and I don't complain. I am speaking of a deep wrongness I have noticed in society ever since I was a kid. Probably the biggest thing I hate about republicans. They think it is ok for people to be slaves for pennies, and in the same breath offer more tax cuts for the wealthy.

Not sure why you brought political parties into this - frankly, both of the major parties suck wrt respecting basic rights, no matter what your view of them is.

No, I expect to work and have it actually worth something. If it is not, there is no point in working.

No, you expect things within the scope of the effort you're willing to exert. You keep bringing up 'working 40 hours' as if that was handed down by the Constitution or God Himself.

If someone can't make it on 40 hours, then they need to work more or make themselves more valuable to their company. Pretty simple. I can't imagine anyone is going to agree that anyone is entitles (there's that pesky word again) to a particular lifestyle because they punch in for 40 hours/week.

It's pretty sad how you keep bringing up 'no point in working' when it's pointed out that if one can't make it on 40 hours they need to buck up and work more.

Well, if people work, they should be able to afford a "basic" level of life. Expecting someone to work for nothing is slavery, which is basically what you are saying. If you work 80 hours a week, you do not have time for leisure and enjoying your life. If people keep working for nothing, barely scraping by, and can't afford to go to the doctor or eat, basically slaves to the rich, that is how revolutions start. We don't live in the 14th century anymore, where you are worthless if you don't have a title and land. Private property or money does not make one person superior to another. Your things do not define who you are.

No one said things define anyone - you're simply arbitrarily picking some number (40 hours/week in this case) and acting like if one shows up for their shift they deserve something. All they deserve is the money for the work they do, as was agreed upon when they took the job.

I swear, I'm convinced you don't know what the word entitlement means...

At this point, I'm tired of chasing the same point over and over - if you don't get it now, I doubt you ever will. Good luck to you, wish you understood what it means for someone to take care of themselves rather than complaining that those 'selfish rich' people don't give them more...

[Guest ab28]

I understand what it means. I understand that the rich have a solemn duty to the poor. They did not get wealthy in a vacuum.

Simply put, people need to be paid more. I have worked a lot more that 40 hours a week, and I did not have time for myself. I was tired all the time, never had time to relax and enjoy. In short, I felt like a slave. By becoming more of a minimalist, I cut back a lot on the things I buy. Even so, basic necessities like food and healthcare need to be cheaper. I realize much of it is government regulations, but corporate greed does not help either. When you are sick and hurting, and a hospital can turn you away, something is deeply wrong. People are worth more than money.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Don't you think if the gov got out of the way and

the marketplace were allowed to function that we

would have lower prices? Wages would not need

to be so high either, based on the job. Most of the

pressure on our economy is government regulated

and manipulated to make winners and losers,

dependent on the politics of the moment and are

the cause of the huge downturns. If the government

would quit trying to manipulate everything in the

economy we might be a lot more stable.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk