An article from the news magazine "The Week".
(http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/3881/theeconomy.th.jpg) (http://img137.imageshack.us/i/theeconomy.jpg/)
I totally missed the first phrase when I read this originally but I assume that they're talking about how single-mothers are locked into an seemingly inescapable cycle of downward mobility. As a friend of mine who's A.B.D. in Sociology once told me, research has shown that for women, the two quickest paths to poverty are divorce and out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Obviously, there are poor men too but (I think) what this guy is saying is that kids are expensive and unlike men, women can't run from their kids, so if we did a better job of tackling teen pregnancy (etc) while continuing to spend the amount of money on welfare that we're currently spending, the problem will literally solve itself. Whether or not that'll actually work, I have no idea but that appears to be his message. As for whether or not I believe that, eh. Poverty is a complex problem and from what I've seen so far, different groups of people (Blacks, women, etc) are poor for completely different reasons. There's no cure-all that'll fix everyone's problem but it's possible that the "plan" put forth in this article might work by accident.
The second phrase is why I posted this article though. It's just such a haunting line and it really seems to epitomize the aneristic delusion of the American worker. People are being treated like serfs but instead of revolting they just act like the very Laws of Nature have given their corporate overlords the Divine Right to rule over them with an iron fist. I've never held such a job but I get the impression from people I know that the last line of this article pretty much sums up how they feel about the workplace. The question though is how to cure people of this disease?
If people want what the System can give them, they will usually submit to Its rules.
This System has hedonistic creature comforts as Its lures, which is very powerful; Dead Prez once asked, would you rather have gold, or freedom?" Most people would answer, "Gold".
In order to gain the illusion of First and Second Circuit security, most people are willing to sacrifice Third and Fourth Circuit independence. And as of yet, they haven't found any comparable substitute.
A person wants a house. They look around, and they see that The System has control over the kind of house they want. So, the answer is to either change what they want, change the system, or follow the rules.
Most of them will follow the rules.
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2010, 02:48:17 PM
[snip]
Most of them will follow the rules.
Some days I believe in "them" but mostly I'm realistic enough to see that there is only "us" . . . know what I mean?
What are these circuit's of independence that you're referencing?
Oh, you mean this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-Circuit_Model_of_Consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-Circuit_Model_of_Consciousness)
Are you saying that having a government sponsored military and a "stable" national government creates the illusion of 1st and 2nd circuit security? But how does that play into giving up 3rd and 4th circuit security?
No... it was in regards to this:
QuoteSo there's your choice: Join the legions of the unemployed, or work like a dog, in a perpetual state of fear.
As far as I can tell, that doesn't have much to do with the military and the government. Consumerism and the shift of bio-survival anxienty to money has restructured this societies perceived needs in terms of the 8-circuit model.
Even if you don't know about the 8C model, the remainder of my post was pretty self-evident.
Out of wedlock and teenage pregnancies? :lulz:
I had my son at 18, then married the guy and divorced him 7 years later.
I never needed welfare or gov't assistance. I took care of everything myself.
I'm "middle class" as it is now.
I can't agree with that being a leading cause of poverty unless women are getting weaker and don't know how to take care of themselves anymore :?
I don't know, anyone have a good argument on that one?
As for working like a dog with no appreciation, yeah that I can vouch for.
The ceo of the bank I work for got a huge bonus last year. I got nothing. Not even a verbal thank you.
Quote from: Turdley Burgleson on February 01, 2010, 06:50:25 PM
Out of wedlock and teenage pregnancies? :lulz:
I had my son at 18, then married the guy and divorced him 7 years later.
I never needed welfare or gov't assistance. I took care of everything myself.
I'm "middle class" as it is now.
I can't agree with that being a leading cause of poverty unless women are getting weaker and don't know how to take care of themselves anymore :?
I don't know, anyone have a good argument on that one?
As for working like a dog with no appreciation, yeah that I can vouch for.
The ceo of the bank I work for got a huge bonus last year. I got nothing. Not even a verbal thank you.
Middle class used to mean something, you know?
Own your own house, have heath insurance, take a vacation once a year out of town, splurge a little, save for retirement, and do the above without racking up huge debts.
Now it means you don't live under a bridge. And that's not working class people trying to change the term, it's what's actually happened to the middle class.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 01, 2010, 06:54:32 PM
Quote from: Turdley Burgleson on February 01, 2010, 06:50:25 PM
Out of wedlock and teenage pregnancies? :lulz:
I had my son at 18, then married the guy and divorced him 7 years later.
I never needed welfare or gov't assistance. I took care of everything myself.
I'm "middle class" as it is now.
I can't agree with that being a leading cause of poverty unless women are getting weaker and don't know how to take care of themselves anymore :?
I don't know, anyone have a good argument on that one?
As for working like a dog with no appreciation, yeah that I can vouch for.
The ceo of the bank I work for got a huge bonus last year. I got nothing. Not even a verbal thank you.
Middle class used to mean something, you know?
Own your own house, have heath insurance, take a vacation once a year out of town, splurge a little, save for retirement, and do the above without racking up huge debts.
Now it means you don't live under a bridge. And that's not working class people trying to change the term, it's what's actually happened to the middle class.
Good point, sir. Good point.
I guess I'm more... lower middle class? But I do splurge once a year on either something nice or a vacation out of town to keep from pulling my hair out and eating it. Also, to keep from getting fired for you know, "going off the deep end" or some such.
Quote from: Turdley Burgleson on February 01, 2010, 07:00:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 01, 2010, 06:54:32 PM
Quote from: Turdley Burgleson on February 01, 2010, 06:50:25 PM
Out of wedlock and teenage pregnancies? :lulz:
I had my son at 18, then married the guy and divorced him 7 years later.
I never needed welfare or gov't assistance. I took care of everything myself.
I'm "middle class" as it is now.
I can't agree with that being a leading cause of poverty unless women are getting weaker and don't know how to take care of themselves anymore :?
I don't know, anyone have a good argument on that one?
As for working like a dog with no appreciation, yeah that I can vouch for.
The ceo of the bank I work for got a huge bonus last year. I got nothing. Not even a verbal thank you.
Middle class used to mean something, you know?
Own your own house, have heath insurance, take a vacation once a year out of town, splurge a little, save for retirement, and do the above without racking up huge debts.
Now it means you don't live under a bridge. And that's not working class people trying to change the term, it's what's actually happened to the middle class.
Good point, sir. Good point.
I guess I'm more... lower middle class? But I do splurge once a year on either something nice or a vacation out of town to keep from pulling my hair out and eating it. Also, to keep from getting fired for you know, "going off the deep end" or some such.
No, you're solidly middle class, by today's definition.
There are the obscenely rich, the just barely making it, and the poor. Which one is in the middle? Oh, yeah. Almost everyone you and I know.
ouch. :sad:
(http://000.blackironprison.com/2008-US-hourly.png) (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=23807.0)
(click for the thread with more pretty pictures)
btw I realized something wrong with those graphs, from the data I took, this graphs only the people that HAVE a full-time job.
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 01, 2010, 11:59:17 PM
(http://000.blackironprison.com/2008-US-hourly.png) (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=23807.0)
(click for the thread with more pretty pictures)
btw I realized something wrong with those graphs, from the data I took, this graphs only the people that HAVE a full-time job.
well, there is SOME good news.
according to that chart, I'm knocking on the door of upper-middle class.
:lulz:
numbers from the BLS, click the image to see the thread where I made that graph.
Hrm, do you remember if the BLS data takes into account the free overtime worked by salary employees?
I know me and my mom sat down and figured out that she actually made less per hour (even without time and a half) than me thanks to her 60 hour work week.