NPR Article: Struggling In Ohio As The Economy Tightens

Ah, the MSM campaign to make it seem as if we're in the midst of another Great Depression continues.

Well, that's not entirely accurate. I wouldn't exactly call "NPR" a "mainstream media" outlet. I mean, even if we all have to pay for their existence, they hardly even pretend to be mainstream. But, hey, at least they wear their leftism on their collective (pun intended) sleeves. Points for honesty. (De-fund them, NOW!).

Anyways...

Okay. Sounds good. Working family doubtlessly busted its ass to provide a better future for their offspring. That's the American Way, right...the "life might be extremely hard for me, but at least I'm going to give my kid a shot at having it better than I do" method. That is the true immigrant experience, right? (As opposed to the Baby Boomer experience, laden with "me first, always" to the detriment of their offspring.)

Uh, what?

People on here always come at me with the "America Ain't a Meritocracy" shit. They're right. It ain't. It should be, though. It should be as close to that as we can possibly get. People have freedom to do all sorts of shit in this country - including FAIL.

And these people FAIL.

"...[she] and most of her siblings and their spouses are unemployed..."
"...has never worked..."
"...subsidized housing..."
"...government assistance..."
"...food stamps..."
"...social security..."

These people FAIL even if we're having the most booming economy in The History of Mankind.

How is it that there is no clarification on the "had several jobs in recent years" part of the equation? What happened? Continually sexually harassed? Laid off? Outsourced? If it had been any of those things, they'd surely have mentioned it (it follows the Party Line, after all). Nope, you can bet she was incompetent somehow - maybe because she couldn't speak the language or couldn't perform the required duties or both. (*PSST* She didn't like to work is my guess...).

Getting knocked up might be a challenge for this one. But I digress... Something tells me there is a fundamental problem with the program(s) when this is a workable "strategy". Hmmmm....?

My Italian grandmother (b. 1910 d. 2004), rest her soul, once told me that figured out why the city in which she lived (Chester, PA) collapsed. It was one of those typical East Coast small cities that boomed during WWII (had a very active shipyard) and has since died. In her estimation, when there was a lack of work in the "old days", motivated people moved to where the work is...whether it be 25 miles away or across the country. If a dam was being built somewhere or a mine was opening or trees needed cut...whatever..people moved. Meanwhile, the unmotivated types - especially once various social programs became available - stayed put and rotted (themselves and everything around them)...presumably waiting for the work to come to them(?) (This phenomenon is also known, in part, as "White Flight".)

So this town in which these people in the article live has one employer (that none of them seem to work for, anyway?) and that employer is leaving. Time to get the fuck out of Dodge, don'tcha think? Nah. It's easier to sit put and fucking complain. Especially when there is a GOP POTUS and/or Congress - you'll have plenty of leftist news people come to you for interviews - everybody will hear you bitch and moan! (These types better hope that McCain wins, lest they and their "plight" not be worth mentioning any longer.)

Uh, oh, they're starving. This part of the story makes me such an asshole for giving them a hard time, eh? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

I mean, look at these poor folk...



Give them some damned meat and ice cream, already, you heartless jerks! Can't the cameraman throw 'em a sandwich or a Nutty Buddy or something?

Oh, wait, that's not them. That's an actual family apparently having actual problems somewhere in a shitty part of the world.

These are the subjects of the article:



Maybe, instead, the cameraman can throw 'em a, uh, a Weight Watcher Points Manual (en Espagnol of course). Or a brontosaurus burger. Or the middle finger, on behalf of me. Something!

The presentation of bullshit "news" stories like this would bother me a lot less if they would not continually use them as a bludgeon on the American consciousness in a nakedly partisan effort to falsely disparage GOP leadership.

I'm fucking tired of it. The shame of it is all is, of course, the "crying wolf" effect. Real people with real problems that might actually be worth helping might go unnoticed/ignored/neglected because of bullshit like this.

Elect Obama 2008! End [the mainstream media coverage of] Hunger in the United States! What a crock of shit.

(Side note - I am 100% fed up with "sob stories" through the media and otherwise of people having to give up or cut back on luxury items when pinched. Seriously...read a story about some douchebag family crying because they had to use [*GASP*] hamburger instead of steak for summer cookouts! Oh, the humanity!!! Retards.)

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

While I agree that anecdotal sob stories are merely formulated to push an agenda, perhaps your tact could be improved a bit while making your case. You might be a bit more persuasive this way.

It's obvious that many people will fail regardless of the overall economic situation. However, I think the way you attribute fault to those who "sit and rot" while not "moving where there's work" is unrealistically simplistic. It doesn't take into account the fact that many of these jobs are moving straight out of the country, not merely moving to other states like in your examples. In essence, you're telling a lot of people who are already having a hard time getting by that they are at fault for not having the financial means to move to a place with a better job market.

Never mind people mooching off the system. Let's take a hypothetical example of someone who wasn't taking hand-outs and was just barely getting by. His job moves to China, and you're essentially telling this person, "Why don't you move to China where the jobs are?" Well, the jobs are there because labor is cheap. Labor is cheap there because the large population results in significant demand for even the crappiest low paying jobs.

Unskilled labor is easy to export, and these are the ones who lose their jobs first due to globalization. You're naively patronizing this entire category of people for not easily finding another job... which could easily be a factor of A) other unskilled jobs are also moving farther than they can travel, or B) the actual jobs that remain require education they currently do not have (and cannot afford) because they just lost their low paying job.

You really just seem to be overtly dismissive of complex situations, categorizing everyone in dire economic circumstance as moochers and inevitable failures. While NPR may have utilized a few of these people to further their political points, you appear to have done a similar deed here. Globalization plays a far greater role here than laziness of those who are "unwilling to move to the jobs," and it's frankly silly to even imply that it has comparable influence on the matter.

I'll point out that it's not as easy to move for a job as it once was. Believe me, I wish I could just head to a city with a hundred dollars in my pocket, approach the owner of some small establishment and sweep floors for him until I found a good job, but I'd be more likely to head to some city with five hundred in my pocket and find myself homeless once that ran out.

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

its just more of the positive message that the msm puts out so they can trumpet the hope and change that will lift these poor unfortunates ( with the help of an industrial floor jack or forklift) out of "poverty"....

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

(1) Do you question why the jobs are being outsourced? Why is it less profitable to hire American workers? Why is the US a worse place for unskilled/semiskilled labourers? Become angry at the politicians who create this situation.

I'm so sick of people whining about "greedy" companies moving operations abroad, like they're charities who should give people jobs because they're American. That's just arrogance.

(2) If you refuse to educate yourself to even high school level, or acquire vocational skills while the times are good, then you will not have a job when the times are not so good. That's no one's fault but your own. For fuck's sake, you have free high schools!

(3) Globalisation is not to blame. Globalisation gives the jobs to the people who can do them in the best and cheapest manner, which helps people work themselves out of poverty. It's infuriating that there are those who say that those in developing countries have no right to such opportunities, because there are those in the US who can't compete.

corporate tax rates today FORCE co.'s to do what they have to do.

IF we can build lets ay an ipod, which I just bought yesterday , made in china of course, to pay extra for shipping it here, and higher corp. taxes, that takes the cream off the top, thats one issue they refuse to understand and politicians who use class warfare don't want to touch.

Companies here park off shore profits in off shore accounts, because to repatriate them would cost them 35% of the profits, do you blame them?

In today’s world, you cannot pay an auto worker a total compensation package north of 100k and remain competitive, no way. Toyota Honda et al do quite well paying around 80k and I don’t hear their workers complaining.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

I said nothing about the companies being greedy. You're putting words in my mouth.

Also, if you actually read my post a bit more closely, the question of "why" this is happening is given a fairly straightforward answer. Like I said, it has more to do with population growth in other countries than anything else. Sure, some politicians might help speed up the process by further decreasing incentives to stay in America, but the root of the problem isn't something we can easily fix. Any economics class will tell you that labor is one of the biggest limited resources that drives up the price of goods. By going to countries that are ridiculously overpopulated, you can reduce your implicit costs because people are essentially waiting in line for even the worst paying jobs.

And perhaps if you used a bit of reading comprehension you learned from your highschool experience, you would know that the point you're making here is irrelevant. In fact, I acknowledged that this would happen. My point was that the author of this thread was doing the exact same thing he was criticizing NPR for. He's implying that we should blame people like these lazy fat ones for this major economic problem. He's painting a simple picture of why things are going bad in many areas, and it's a gross oversimplification. You can find lazy fatasses in every major area that is failing, but this hardly means that laziness is the cause of the problem.

So... "globalisation is not to blame." Then you go on to describe how globalization is to blame. Good work sir.

When you actually look at the pay people are working in for these overpopulated countries, it's fairly obvious that Americans cannot currently compete on a lot of those unskilled jobs. I said nothing about how people should have no right to such opportunities. In either case, it doesn't change the fact that the company moved to acquire cheaper labor, which is still globalization.

(1) That's bullshit. Firstly, what is "ridiculously overpopulated"? Secondly, these people are doing the unskilled labour because they need the jobs and they can do them much more cheaply, because they are just introducing capitalism. The money is more than they can earn anywhere else.

(2) How was my point irrelevent? You claimed that people remained unemployed because they couldn't afford an education, having lost their jobs. I made the point that everyone should keep their skills strong before they have to.

(3) As the child of immigrants, I'm always sceptical of the idea that people are unable to work their way out of poverty. It's not "complicated".

(4) To blame for what, exactly? Capitalism is about making money. Unskilled and semi skilled American workers can't seem to compete with those in the developing world. That's only the "fault" of those who can't compete. Globalisation works, and brings benefits to the best. Also, don't call me sir.

(5) Yes, they can do the work for a lower price. Are the companies meant to lose money so the less effective workers can have jobs?

(6) So what's the problem with the better workers getting the jobs?

(7) Yes, it's globalisation. So what?

It was just a phrase I used to describe high population density. For example, China has made a limit of one child per family to fight their population growth and problems associated with it. That's fairly "ridiculous" by our standards.

Not everyone is capitalist, by the way. If I remember correctly, China is still communist and we are still losing a ton of jobs to them. You seem to be conflating competition with capitalism.


It was irrelevant because it didn't apply to the point I was making. I threw out two quick examples of how his synopsis of blame was an oversimplification. I even bothered to write "could" for these examples, which means I wasn't asserting it as fact. It was just illustrating possibilities he's overlooking while blanketing people as lazy. I do think it's fair to say that not all people are lazy and mooching on social systems. I also think it's fair to say that not all people can afford secondary education to "keep their skills strong."

I might point out that it's not very scientific (nor convincing) to apply your anecdotal experience to the whole.

I was using "blame" as a synonym for cause. Globalization caused most of it. While I'm sure a lot of people are lazy, pointing out their lack of competition is putting some major spin on the situation.

Ok let me get this straight. Given this example: Someone is working 60 hours a week just barely keeping his family afloat, and the company outsources his labor for below the American minimum wage. It's his fault for not "competing" and accepting below the national minimum wage? That doesn't make much sense at all. (In case you don't get it, I'm not saying all situations are like this. I'm just pointing out how your blanket statement doesn't apply in all situations).

If by "effective" you mean cost per unit of output, then I'd say it depends. We're getting more into my own person moral whims rather than an (attempted) objective discussion; there's a line at some point where it crosses over into sweat shop labor, and no, I don't think that companies are meant to pursue increased profits at any consequence. Why not use child labor in 3rd world countries? Why not decrease emissions regulations to increase profits? Why not?

Let me clear something up here. I'm well aware that there are situations where people can and should accept lower wages to keep their job, and the automotive companies are a great example. I'm just saying that a LOT of people simply cannot compete with the wages people accept in other countries. This can be due to increased governmental regulations (minimum wage laws, corporate taxes, safety standards, etc) and conversely, decreased governmental regulations in other nations. I'm under the impression it's more the latter than the former. Coupled with their high population density, there are other nations can stay more competitive than the average American worker no matter what he does. I simply think that pointing blame on the average American worker for being lazy or incapable of accepting lower wages is shortsighted.

Better in what sense?

Cheaper isn't always better, and anyone who has had to deal with an illiterate help-line tech from India has experienced this first hand. Ok, I'm joking a bit there.

I think the problem is when motivation for profit supersedes the negative effects on society. Where we draw the line can certainly be argued, but I suppose we should at least begin by agreeing that there is a line. Right?

So let's not make blanket statements attributing blame to a select group of people when we know the situation is a lot more complex than that.

Yeah, I always thought "poor" meant poor.

That would mean poor people could hardly afford to eat enough to get so disgustingly FAT wouldn't it ?

It seems we've somehow ALSO redefined poor in America. Among the other things we're in the business of redefining.

Now the POOR look like the richest, laziest tycoons the world has ever SEEN.

Strange isn't it ?

Once again, I am taking a few hits for the contempt I display within my postings. Hate to break it to some folks, but the contempt is justified. Contempt for the MSM cherrypicking of horseshit "stories" like this to further an agenda. Contempt for politicians who use morons like in this story to wring tears/dollars/support out of the retarded among their audience. Contempt for the people in this story for attempting to play the victim.

The only victims in this story are the people that read it. It was a waste of time dedicating ink to those fools.

I explained it very well before, but I'll do it again. Here are my problems with this story:

As Trips pointed out, our definition of people deserving our sympathy has been altered. This is no accident. This is by design. This follows in the very basic Truism that leftism is based in misery. Without misery, Democrats have nothing to talk about. If misery is alleviated (in spite of Democrat efforts), *POOF*, use the Propaganda Machine to redefine misery. Nauseating.

As for the toolboxes being profiled...the very basic problem is that various "safety nets" - that may even be of some value to the "good people" among us - have prevented these morons from actually suffering. Every American does (should!?!?) have the right to suffer. If they were suffering for as long as they've not been supporting themselves, they'd likely have been motivated to actually do something...or die not trying. Win/Win for society, as far as I am concerned.

As has been stated, people who work, benefit. People who are complacent when times are good are the screaming meamies when the ship is sinking. That old Woody Woodpecker cartoon where Woody is swimming/playing in the summer/fall while the other creatures gathered food for winter was dead-on.

It's not strictly a "ghetto" phenomenon. I was at a very large credit card company for 11 or so years. I was no dummy...I saw where things were going. All I knew for certain, though, was that the company for which I originally worked ceased to exist. Sure, the name was the same, but the company with which I fell in love was no more. So, when they offered voluntary severance packages, I jumped on it - over a year off with full pay/benefits. Funny part about the "packages" - the majority of the people that took them were confident they could find another job that paid as much, if not more (and I did, after taking 8 months off for fun...drew a paycheck + package check for 6 months, though...nice). The useless walking, breathing Dilbert comic characters, hiding in their offices, trying not to be noticed, did not, however, take the packages. They were eventually given far less generous "not voluntary" packages. But, boy was it fun to watch those types (and hear about them) - after years of complacency, all the sudden running around [often futilely] attempting to make themselves seem vital, important, or, hell, even necessary. You can't fool Mother Nature, motherfuckers. They failed. They sat and got fat when they could and paid for it dearly when it came to crunch time - with their $500k houses, multiple fancy cars, and, in some cases, marriages/kids. They are actually more deserving of the sympathy solicited by the article above than the subjects of that article - at least the people of which I speak actually tried, if only once.

The company I mentioned was bought out and the slaughter continued for some time. I was in a group of about 12 and the only person in that group to take a package (voluntary or otherwise)...over 3000 people took the same package I did company-wide, though. All of my peers survived the myriad cuts, so I could still be there if I had wanted to be. Glad I moved on, though. Oh, so glad.

Moving to where the work is works just fine. I never said anything about moving to China. Get up out of your rotten no-employer-having town, ladies (in OP), and find work. You can do it. Will it be easy? No. It is not supposed to be easy. Things worth doing rarely are.

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

To be fair, our society is different enough from the medieval references you're making that fatness no longer is associated with wealth. In times where this was true, the poorer classes performed hard labor and had a genuine shortage of food, leading to skinniness whereas wealthy people had enough food to allow their weight to be dictated by appetite and metabolism.

In our current society, the percentage of jobs, menial or otherwise, that demand grueling enough labor to keep someone thin is tiny by comparison. For every landscaper, golf caddy or construction worker, there are dozens of jobs as waiters, delivery men, janitors, secretaries, etc that simply do not require the physical exertion to keep someone thin, all other factors being equal.

Also to consider is that the general standard of living in America has increased to a degree where starvation or often even hunger is no longer the issue that it once was. If you go out and look at the cost of various kinds of food, you'll notice an interesting trend that has developed in the last several decades. The cheapest foods these days are things like buckets of fried chicken and Big Macs. In the grocery store you can buy cans of SPAM or other such things on the cheap whereas if you head over to the "organic" or "healthy" sections, foods are significantly more expensive. At the deli (or deli section) as the percentage of fat in ground beef goes down, the price goes up. If you want fat-free substitutes or low cal this or Atkins diet that, you need to fork over more money. The only exception I can think of is buying raw produce like potatoes or heads of lettuce, but most people aren't going to find these things to be filling meals, time after time. So, to get a meal, the choice between Salmon for $9 a pound or 50% fat, grade D beef for 40 cents a wheelbarrow-full isn't a difficult choice, even if it is an unhealthy one.

And, if you think about images of wealthy or poor people alone, that tells the story. Stereotypical as it may be, I tend to picture an average rich person as being relatively fit and an average welfare recipient as being a porker. I'm sure you do the same.

So, to cite the fatness of diabetes ridden, impoverished people as evidence that they're not actually poor doesn't pass the smell test. It just tells us that they aren't poor compared to serfs in Medieval Europe.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson