Panorama, 13th feb - crumbling USA

[Leeds Spur]

And linking youth unployment to the riots is utter gonads - people don't think all young people are rioters!

The majority of rioters had CRIMINAL RECORDS already, and many were professionals!! Teachers etc!

They always compare us to Austria and Holland, with much smaller populations.

Germany has a great record with this...due to their huge number of manufacturers and the fact that their elderly do actually retire!

 

[elltrev]

I believe people do bad things because they are bad, not due to their environment.

Otherwise all poor people would be bad, they aren't.

Life is full of choices.

But the question is, why do you think they are bad? If not the environment they were raised in, are you saying you think that people who do bad things are genetically predisposed to being bad? I think it's an important point, because one's stance on the nature vs nurture debate completely changes (or should change) one's opinion on how such people should be dealt with. I definitely support the nurture side of the debate in general.

In any case I'm not saying that being 'poor' makes people 'bad', I'm saying that growing up in a 'bad' school with 'bad' parents and 'bad' friends will likely make someone grow up to be a 'bad' person. And I believe that, with the right intervention, those people can become less 'bad'.

 

[Leeds Spur]

The comments section is quite telling - I agree with many of the comments.

 

[papaspur]

But the question is, why do you think they are bad? If not the environment they were raised in, are you saying you think that people who do bad things are genetically predisposed to being bad? I think it's an important point, because one's stance on the nature vs nurture debate completely changes (or should change) one's opinion on how such people should be dealt with. I definitely support the nurture side of the debate in general.

In any case I'm not saying that being 'poor' makes people 'bad', I'm saying that growing up in a 'bad' school with 'bad' parents and 'bad' friends will likely make someone grow up to be a 'bad' person. And I believe that, with the right intervention, those people can become less 'bad'.

Just in general, the fallacy of the nature vs. nurture debate is that it seemingly pits two ideologies together, when in fact they both have an important role to play. It's all these factors combining that make it very difficult to filter out what traits are genetic or predisposed, and which are picked up from the environment.

You made a good point about what sorts of peers a person has when they are young. In fact, I think a person's friends have more sway than their parents, but it is up to the parents to not be lazy bricks and let their kids hang out with whomever. I don't know if the Tiger Mom book got a lot of press in the UK, but people were livid about it here in the states.
"You can't tell me what I can or can't do with my child!", says the lazy parent who doesn't tell their child what they can or can't do.

 

[papaspur]

The comments section is quite telling - I agree with many of the comments.

Haha, NYT comments are the polar opposite of those comments from the Daily Fail...

"Derp, y come u singlng out all the conservatvs u kno liberals is all full of brick"

 

[Leeds Spur]

http://www.amazon.com/Works-New-Age-Employment-Means/dp/0983500630

Interesting book....

 

[Leeds Spur]

Haha, NYT comments are the polar opposite of those comments from the Daily Fail...

"Derp, y come u singlng out all the conservatvs u kno liberals is all full of brick"

Granted - you guys are fudging paranoid!!

 

[Leeds Spur]

Just in general, the fallacy of the nature vs. nurture debate is that it seemingly pits two ideologies together, when in fact they both have an important role to play. It's all these factors combining that make it very difficult to filter out what traits are genetic or predisposed, and which are picked up from the environment.

You made a good point about what sorts of peers a person has when they are young. In fact, I think a person's friends have more sway than their parents, but it is up to the parents to not be lazy bricks and let their kids hang out with whomever. I don't know if the Tiger Mom book got a lot of press in the UK, but people were livid about it here in the states.
"You can't tell me what I can or can't do with my child!", says the lazy parent who doesn't tell their child what they can or can't do.

I believe you are born gay if that answers the question!

The most important people are the parents. You are born into scum, you become scum.

What intervention? Adoption? There aren't enough people adopting in the world to solve our issues, or the far bigger issues over in the states.

 

[papaspur]

I believe you are born gay if that answers the question!

The most important people are the parents. You are born into scum, you become scum.

What intervention? Adoption? There aren't enough people adopting in the world to solve our issues, or the far bigger issues over in the states.

Yeah, I don't think spending a weekend at your gay uncle's house for a weekend while you're a child is going to make you gay... it's funny that some religious folk they can just pray the gay away :ross:

I think it's time to start cutting tubes
If the population were fixed, they won't be able to propagate their sorry selves. I wouldn't ever condone that, but I think our society is hitting a wall in terms of how many derpdeedoos it can support.

 

[Leeds Spur]

Most multi-child families are from lower socio-economic groups.

These people disproportionately get and use welfare money.

I would 'fund' the first 2 children, any more and you're on your own!

 

[yiddo2786]

Global GDP per capita is $10k, that's around ?ú6400 per person.

UK GDP per capita is $37,000 per capita.

For all the chat about China being the coming force, their's is $8,000!

The west is dying.......the trend is irreversible.

THe resources will continue to move towards global equilibrium........the top 20 economies in 50 years time will look very different to today.

Nothing can be done, except a downward revision in our aspirations. The west has no right whatsoever to a disproportionate allocation of resources and wealth that they have now.

Lots of people need a MAJOR reality check. The welfare wet dream has been funded by debt, money borrowed from the rest of the developing world, now the part of over.

=D>

Give it 10-15 years and China, Brazil and India will be the world's superpowers. Economies built upon consumerism are not sustainable, but the aforementioned 3 who build upon exports and a driven, low-paid workforce will succeed hugely.

 

[Leeds Spur]

To be fair though, China is already experiencing issues with their expanding middle class.

There are hundreds of millions of Chinese who will never be anything more than peasant farmers.

The world can sustain around 1.5 billion people with the same lifestyle that the USA has, (the USA uses 25% of world energy and resources yet has only 5% of the population) we already have 7 BILLION people!

There aren't enough resources to give everyone a western lifestyle.

There's enough for everyone to have ?ú6400 a year worth of resources and output.......somethings gotta give!

 

[monkeybarry]

Paying bills?

But what do you REALLY need?

In the rest of the world need food, shelter, warmth, dry accomodation........we woulddefine it as a TV, Radio, Sky? Family Holiday?

You see, when you start really looking at this, it gets quite scary in terms of ramifications for the west lifestyle.

Exactly.

Then we have the flip of keeping the economy going and keeping knowledge up to date to create employees with the skills needed. So we have to create a society that has access to and can afford things like the internet & smart phones, which have become essential to modern day life and business.

The future for the west does not look great and being 29 im sure the best working years of my life (30-50ish) are going to be brick. What really annoys me too is I think I am the only person I know that has very little debt (and what I do have I can pay back right now if creditors asked) and therefore didnÔÇÖt (out of choice) really benefit from the free lending period of 95-08.

 

[Leeds Spur]

I've been working full time since 2000, and since then i've paid off all of my debt, (?ú20k).

I'm the only person I know with a pension, no debt and savings.

I'd prefer to be me.

 

[thfcsteff]

I'm just saying these people aren't unemployed due to lack of opportunity.

They re unemployable due to being thick clams, a product of brick parents and schools, and just being stupid.

It was argued that the underclass were a product of capitalism.....that's gonads IMO.

The thing I now want to know is what constitutes an opportunity to you mate? I would still love to see these 'millions of jobs' in London...sounds like when Rick said on The Young Ones, "I've told you a million times, do not exaggerate!"
We both know there are not 'millions of jobs'...but again, if you can prove me wrong, then we can discuss what these 'millions of jobs' are mate.

 

[thfcsteff]

I know......many are like you and I would be the same.

Growth isn't based on the comsumption of raw materials. Technology is the main driver of the global economy.......that is what is causing more unemployment, automation will continue to expand.

In 1950-60 we had full employment, then with better techniques, technology and management methods less human capital is needed.

That and the tripling of the global population and the emergence of the BRIC's and other developing countries.

So......are we to return to biblical ways?

There are no unemployed in developing countries, they might earn fudge all but they all work.

Now jobs paying ?ú25k with full benefits and a welfare state, and education, and healthcare and defence and cuture etc etc etc.......that costs money.

Us in the west are the ones who need to adjust our expectations.

Progress is what has fudged the west, not capitalism.

Oh come on man, READ what you're saying! 'Progress is what has fudged the west, not capitalism'...that's the fudging problem right there in a nutshell my old china, the two have been holding hands with a vice-like grip!!!! You see, people DEFINE progress in terms of how cheap and fudging convenient their lives can be, how much time they can save doing things which actually REQUIRE time to have ANY fudging quality whatsoever i.e. raising children, making a loaf of bread, milking a fudging cow, offering decent customer service, wearing a well-made item of clothing, etc, blah blah blah...in the stampede to 'own' as much as possible and 'have' as many 'things' as possible, the QUALITY of life has been flushed down the bricker. And that is absolutely a product of aggressive capitalism. Recent (and very current) history is showing that. THIS is why even the checkout person at Tesco or wherever is being phased out in favor of 'check yourself out', why phone customer service (when you hack your way through the options) often leads you to call centres in India, why food is more tampered with and less organic than ever before, and why qualified teachers cannot find proper jobs! Nobody gives a brick until it affects their wallet!

BTW, do you seriously believe there are 'no unemployed in developing countries', bugger me mate, are you running a blanket shop up there? ;-)...

 

[Leeds Spur]

The thing I now want to know is what constitutes an opportunity to you mate? I would still love to see these 'millions of jobs' in London...sounds like when Rick said on The Young Ones, "I've told you a million times, do not exaggerate!"
We both know there are not 'millions of jobs'...but again, if you can prove me wrong, then we can discuss what these 'millions of jobs' are mate.

Probably 8/9 million people work in London. A third of the population are foreign born.

There's a solution in there somewhere.

 

[Leeds Spur]

Oh come on man, READ what you're saying! 'Progress is what has fudged the west, not capitalism'...that's the fudging problem right there in a nutshell my old china, the two have been holding hands with a vice-like grip!!!! You see, people DEFINE progress in terms of how cheap and fudging convenient their lives can be, how much time they can save doing things which actually REQUIRE time to have ANY fudging quality whatsoever i.e. raising children, making a loaf of bread, milking a fudging cow, offering decent customer service, wearing a well-made item of clothing, etc, blah blah blah...in the stampede to 'own' as much as possible and 'have' as many 'things' as possible, the QUALITY of life has been flushed down the bricker. And that is absolutely a product of aggressive capitalism. Recent (and very current) history is showing that. THIS is why even the checkout person at Tesco or wherever is being phased out in favor of 'check yourself out', why phone customer service (when you hack your way through the options) often leads you to call centres in India, why food is more tampered with and less organic than ever before, and why qualified teachers cannot find proper jobs! Nobody gives a brick until it affects their wallet!

BTW, do you seriously believe there are 'no unemployed in developing countries', bugger me mate, are you running a blanket shop up there? ;-)...

They don't have a welfare state in these countries. How do the poor feed ant house themselves? They work alright!!

 

[ashesmod]

The problem is that not everyone is willing to do anything for a job. This means that the lower class jobs us British people think we are too good for. These are the people that this country would not run without. These are the bin men the road cleaners the people that are doing jobs that are not fancy or posh but that allow this country to tick over. I have gratitude to these people, and if half those people on the dole were willing to do them sorts of jobs we as a country would be better off.

What showed me on the American panorama was the great lengths people were going just to get a job and to provide for there families because they had too. These are the people who deserve state handouts. Not the scum who sit on their arse all day everyday because a fancy job does not come and hit them in the face. Who cares if you have a degree in economics if you dont have a job you can also use those calculator figures to clean the streets to earn your state payout.

Rant over

 

[elltrev]

They don't have a welfare state in these countries. How do the poor feed ant house themselves? They work alright!!

But in fairness they don't have jobs as such - most of them earn their meager living from wandering around streets and buses selling food or trinkets. And that's not a viable option for people in Western countries, as no-one would buy what they're selling.