No LTC for the MIDDLE CLASS

[VolAgent]

You dont have to listen to talk radio. Just take a look at State budgets, ever -growing medicaid, deficits, etc. It won't take long to figure out how it all fits together.

Stop focusing on the symptoms and focus on the disease.

 

[ltci4sure]

Stop focusing on the symptoms and focus on the disease.

So what would you say is the disease? Income disparity? Poverty?

I'd say the culture of dependence is the disease, which afflicts like no other. Once any government program gets established - it becomes self-perpetuating and impossible to scale down/manage. Handouts were popular since the Roman times.

 

[VolAgent]

So what would you say is the disease? Income disparity? Poverty?

I'd say the culture of dependence is the disease, which afflicts like no other. Once any government program gets established - it becomes self-perpetuating and impossible to scale down/manage. Handouts were popular since the Roman times.

Still blaming the symptoms and not the disease.

Why did Rome have bread and circuses?

 

[ltci4sure]

Why did Rome have bread and circuses?

Speaking of Rome, bread and circuses usually refers to a practice of government handouts in the form of free wheat and free entertainment as means of gaining political power by the autocratic rulers. In effect, individual liberties in the republic were exchanged for the handouts.... So let's now go back to the causes.... You were saying?

 

[VolAgent]

Speaking of Rome, bread and circuses usually refers to a practice of government handouts in the form of free wheat and free entertainment as means of gaining political power by the autocratic rulers. In effect, individual liberties in the republic were exchanged for the handouts.... So let's now go back to the causes.... You were saying?

They distract the masses from the excesses of the ruling class. Just as is occurring today.

Quite frankly, technology destroyed the middle class. Just as an extreme example, the Sears Tower was needed to hold all the middle managers to prepare reports for senior management. With the computer, they were no longer needed.

Also, the complete lack of loyalty to employees. Previously OJT was the norm, now you are expected to 5 years of experience for entry level jobs. Employers won't hire overqualified candidates as they are afraid they'll leave as soon as the economy improves. Why would they leave a job they felt appreciated at?

Employers, private and public, are doing everything they can to renege on previous promises to employees. They claim it is necessary to save the business/government. Perhaps it is, but it also screams, "Don't trust us next time."

Unless someone develops a new industry that requires large amounts of semi-skilled labor, not much is really going to change. Also, the complete unwillingness of employers to teach the skills they need means they will continue in fruitless efforts to fill open positions.

Predominately employees leave when they are unhappy. It might behoove some employers to spend more effort on giving employees a reason to stay than weeding out any candidate who might ever have the slightest reason to leave.

 

[ltci4sure]

They distract the masses from the excesses of the ruling class. Just as is occurring today.

Just as it was occurring ... well always.

Quite frankly, technology destroyed the middle class. Just as an extreme example, the Sears Tower was needed to hold all the middle managers to prepare reports for senior management. With the computer, they were no longer needed.

Ha! Instead, all of the sudden a new industry emerged and hordes of analysts, programmers, hardware engineers and so forth were needed. Jobs did not evaporate, industry shifted. Not even unprecedented. In the 19th century Luddite movement lashed out against machinery which was seen as a "job-killer". Take a look.

Also, the complete lack of loyalty to employees.

Any company guilty of that would be entirely foolish - won't stay in business long, as employee's negativity and attitude quickly spills over to the customers and, in a market economy, that's the end of the line.

Previously OJT was the norm, now you are expected to 5 years of experience for entry level jobs. Employers won't hire overqualified candidates as they are afraid they'll leave as soon as the economy improves. Why would they leave a job they felt appreciated at?

At one point I had contemplated this same question, having faced overqualified candidates applying for the position which was clearly not suitable for them. At the end of the day any position has certain requirements and limitations. What beginner would be happy with - experienced person would not be. You never want to put someone in a position where the skills of the person are not used. At the same time, often you can't pay for these skills to stay unused either. It is usually a tough call.

Employers, private and public, are doing everything they can to renege on previous promises to employees. They claim it is necessary to save the business/government. Perhaps it is, but it also screams, "Don't trust us next time."

It'd not be so bad if not for the unions, which are a vestige of time long gone. In a new economy flexibility and mobility of skills is king - while the unions aim to restrain that. Hence the backlash from employers and, sometimes the public. Do you own a US-built vehicle? I really wanted to buy one a few years ago - but having compared the quality of the build, i just could not make myself spend the money on an inferior product (built at a union plant). At the same time non-union plants in the US churn out VWs, etc -just fine....

Unless someone develops a new industry that requires large amounts of semi-skilled labor, not much is really going to change. Also, the complete unwillingness of employers to teach the skills they need means they will continue in fruitless efforts to fill open positions.

Did I mention the culture of dependence before? I know many people who struggled, gone to school and now earn $150k+/year. No one spoon-fed them the idea to go acquire the skills...

Predominately employees leave when they are unhappy. It might behoove some employers to spend more effort on giving employees a reason to stay than weeding out any candidate who might ever have the slightest reason to leave.

Any decent business wants people to grow within the org.... that's a given. Only union shops aim to issue employee a trove and chain to it as well.

 

[VolAgent]

Actions speak louder than words. Employers "say" they value employees, but for too many their behavior screams otherwise.

Also, I'm hardly a Luddite. I'm not advocating destroying technology by any means, but you would be crazy to ignore the fact that the computer has displaced many more workers than jobs it has created. Yes, it has created a large upper middle class, but it destroyed a much larger lower/middle middle class. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle either. Technology is here to stay and its impact on labor is here to stay.

Additionally, you seem not to grasp, not everyone is a leader. Most people are followers and great followers at that. Good employees aren't always going to display initiative, but they will follow you to the ends of the earth. Instead of expecting employees to always arrive with the required skill set, realize they may arrive with slightly fewer skills than desired. But, if you train them in what skills you need and value them, you'll have a life long employee.

Again, you seem to be ignoring history. Unions were a reaction to employers run amok. Industrial workplaces were a dangerous place and employees were poorly paid. Unions were labor's attempt to address that. Personally, I see a continue lull in unions for the near future with a sudden resurgence not too far off.

At one point I thought unions were a relic of the past, but now I'm starting to think they may be prime for a comeback. Sadly, too often their leadership is lacking.

 

[ltci4sure]

Actions speak louder than words. Employers "say" they value employees, but for too many their behavior screams otherwise.

Market decides what happens with these companies (usually nothing good).

Also, I'm hardly a Luddite.

I wasn't trying to imply that you are. Just pointing out that the line of thinking in your post has a historical precedent.

I'm not advocating destroying technology by any means, but you would be crazy to ignore the fact that the computer has displaced many more workers than jobs it has created.

Rather, society moves from low-skilled wage labor to a marketplace where skills espoused by individuals are rented to employers, and it is not so easy to find skilled employees. Abuses by the capitalism of early 20th century were due in part to easy availability of labor. Hence the rise of unions. These days, finding skilled employees is not easy at all. And finding someone to do unskilled labor is not easy either (hence illegal immigration, with its own problems).

Additionally, you seem not to grasp, not everyone is a leader.

You don't have to be a leader. Just don't stay in one place while the earth shifts under your feet. Static economies are a thing of the past.

may arrive with slightly fewer skills than desired. But, if you train them in what skills you need and value them, you'll have a life long employee.

That is assuming you could find people who have decent work ethic, aren't stoned at work, etc. Not easy at all these days.

Unions were a reaction to employers run amok. Industrial workplaces were a dangerous place and employees were poorly paid.

That's market. You had large number of unskilled people who would be happy to earn a paycheck. Abuse by employers was just a direct consequence of that. We are in a very different place right now.

Personally, I see a continue lull in unions for the near future with a sudden resurgence not too far off.

It'd be a tragedy for us as consumers and taxpayers. Just look at the US edu system run by the unions. We spend more than virtually any nation on education with mediocre (at best) results.

Sadly, too often their leadership is lacking.

Unions were always embroiled in controversial activities - be it politics or affiliation with organized crime. I think outlawing unions in public sector would do us a lot of good. Passing right to work laws in every state - would be even better.