New Testingstan

what's your source on that soup?

I know that you can still get JSA is you're only working part time; less than 16 hours a week.

But if you're working more than that for minimum wage you're getting more than JSA money. At least that was the situation a couple of years ago when i was on it. I may be misremebering the specifics.

What the fuck happened to us, to the West?

Rich people, generally speaking.

Communism was defeated, Capitalism won.

And as it was proclaimed, it was the End of History.

Crazedwraith wrote:what's your source on that soup?

Only that it's been thrown around a lot on any questions/question time etc, and the guys they're arguing against haven't disputed the figure
I'll look for something more substantial
also, that 40% was referring to a wider range of benefits than jobseeker's IIRC, stuff like housing support

Oxymoron wrote:Communism was defeated, Capitalism won.

And as it was proclaimed, it was the End of History.

Ehhhhh except this sort of thing was starting prior to that. From what I've heard it really took off in the early 80s when there was a big push for "efficiency" - supposedly around then is when people really came to loathe, distrust and backstab their co-workers, because management had successfully set people at each other's throats with the threat of being downsized based on performance (or on the fickle favor/disfavor of management).

Aaron wrote:What the fuck happened to us, to the West?

When you asked that, Aaaron, the first thing I thought about was that.


Anyway, Uraniun, you're probably right. It began with Thatcher and Reagan. But from what I hear, it only took steam once the Berlin Wall fell and and the elites where certain that there was no real opposition left the people could look toward and say to them "Hey fuckers, if you continue treating us like shit we're going to go with those guys".

He's right. maybe I should see that.

but man, when I see shit like the UK jobs program which just exists to shovel money at compay or Canada denying temp workers benefits...I just want to bug off into the bush. this isnt the society I swore to protect. nor do i want any part of it.

what a joke.

evilsoup wrote:In the UK, 40% of people on benefit are actually employed, but the minimum wage is too low and so the state subsidises their greedy employers by topping their income up to a liveable amount
what are the figures of that situation in the USA?

I've no idea. And the typical assumption (around here anyhow) seems to be that just about anyone on welfare is lazy or a druggie or whatever other negative stereotype they happen to have in mind at the time.

Oxymoron wrote:Anyway, Uraniun, you're probably right. It began with Thatcher and Reagan. But from what I hear, it only took steam once the Berlin Wall fell and and the elites where certain that there was no real opposition left the people could look toward and say to them "Hey fuckers, if you continue treating us like shit we're going to go with those guys".

The Berlin wall had little to do with it. Thatcher wanted to keep it, though not necessarily the state capitalism on the other side, but some things must be sacrificed in preventing German reunion, of course.

U235 is right, there was a big push for efficiency to get out of the recession of the '70s and restore profitability, and what that means is lowered wages for the workers. And of course the only thing that prevents the employers to fuck over the workers as much as possible is labour organising themselves and going on the defensive. So Thatcher and Reagan set out to murder the unions, and pushed for the idea that there is some sort of conflict between union and non-union workers. That hard-working manly men are being screwed over by lazy unions fucks enjoying all kinds of undeserved benefits (if this was actually true the smart answer would not be to fuck the unions but to join them). That process is now pretty much complete (I hear they are doing their damnedest to basically outlaw the remnants of the public sector union in certain US states).
They also needed to cut public spending so they could lower income taxes (which is more or less directly a tax on employers' profits; not on workers, as said employers would have you believe so you too will want to lower them), thus the invention of the "welfare queen".

evilsoup wrote:

Crazedwraith wrote:what's your source on that soup?

Only that it's been thrown around a lot on any questions/question time etc, and the guys they're arguing against haven't disputed the figure
I'll look for something more substantial
also, that 40% was referring to a wider range of benefits than jobseeker's IIRC, stuff like housing support

fair enough. that what i get for not listening to any questions. I guess i should and all but half an hour of political arse covering don't pay my attention.

and any answers....

Just to clarify, I talked about the fall of the Berlin Wall not as a causal event, but as the symbolic turning point of an era to the next.

Hey, how about we derive a means to run the planet from first principles.

You know, a sort of constitution for a hypothetical global union with the goal of being all ethical and shit. Or whatever, if you think that'd be a bad thing. I'll start a thread. That can be the first item for discussion.

Since you all probably think I'm some sort of idiot I'll just moderate the discussion instead of submitting ideas.

Ugh, i keep forgetting to go to the doc and renew my antidepressant script. And the earliest appt I could get is Mon.

Well if I had pushed the receptionist i probably could have come in today but she was clearly in a foul mood and wanted to go home early. So...gonna be an emotional weekend.

evilsoup wrote:In the UK, 40% of people on benefit are actually employed, but the minimum wage is too low and so the state subsidises their greedy employers by topping their income up to a liveable amount
what are the figures of that situation in the USA?

I haven't found exact figures, but that is a problem here, as well. There is a federal minimum wage, but it varies from state to state. The west coast and most New England states, for example, have state laws setting their minimum wage higher than the federally mandated one. The problem is that the minimum wage grows very slowly year to year, if it grows at all, so over time people making minimum wage actually lose purchasing power. Even in states with higher minimums, since they typically also have higher costs of living.

That's even before you get into the shady bullshit some companies do like classifying their employees as part-time or private contractors so they don't have to pay for benefits. Generally people you meet here working minimum wage jobs are either a high school or college student, receiving some form of government benefit, working multiple jobs (especially if they make too much to qualify for benefits but not enough to support themselves), or are using the job to supplement the income of a spouse or other relative.

And now I'm in East Side Mario's for lunch in Ottawa.
No reward is worth this.

Christ I hate Gun Control debates, but we need to start to actually have them. And to cut the 2 extremes out of it. If you want to ban all guns or don't want any restrictions whatsoever we ban you from the debate on this subject. I have decreed!

Days like today make me wish facebook didn't exist

Fridays?

Lol, yeah. Pretty sure I totally pissed off Brandon's fiance while trying to be helpful.

no dude you're fine, she's not mad

she's just very passionate about protecting her students

That's good. I just got a "that's not what I'm looking for!" vibe even though the question was pretty open.

is this to do with the latest US school shooting?

yes

my fiance was asking me the best ways to secure her classroom if there is an armed intruder and so on

Still, I think the steel door, armoured windows is a sound idea.