Outsourcing: Good or Bad in the long term?

[NoCalMike 0]

well then this begs the question: What is your social status?

To be generous, none of YOUR damned business.

It was a rhetorical question buddy, don't be an ass.

 

I'd imagine kitchen work/landscaping is rather horrible pay, but for a single guy with a small amount of bills(assumption) of course this is a viable option for YOU, but you are not looking or just outright ignoring the fact that washing dishes and mowing lawns is just in no way a reality for a lot of people.

You assume I'd do just one job. You assumed I didn't hold several jobs at a time.

I'm SORRY that self-sufficiency scares so many here.

Actually, I didn't assume any of that.

 

Even if they were willing to do it, both at once, it still wouldn't pay for 1/2 their bills.  Hell Unemployment in itself would barely pay the bills, so it would be hardly desirable to replace a good paying job.   Also, the higher the wage you leave behind at a job, the harder it will be to find the same pay somewhere else.  This has nothing to do with "refusing to do a job I don't like" it is more the simple fact that these jobs, that they don't happen to like, would in no way pay the bills.

Then cut expenses.

Move if you have to.

Hold multiple jobs if you have to.

 

Don't snivel and whine about how "tough" it is.

-=Mike

 

Ok instead I will move to TheMikeSC's bubble on "planet your not working hard enough"

 

(I messed up the quote tags btw, but try and work it out )

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

With kkk, PowerPlay, and Rant (when he tries to enter a serious discussion instead of trying to elect a breakfast sausage for President or what have you), things can be argued on their merits instead of whether they're right/left.

When was the last time I ever debated anything of substance?...

[Stephen Joseph 0]

To Rip,

 

You're acting like this lack of job growth is a permanent phenomenon. It isn't

 

There exists an idea "technological lag". It deals with network costs and how big a network needs to be before certain externality benefits are realized. With every new tech leap, there's been a boom, bust, and then steady and prolonged boom. Happened with agri, manu, high industry, tech, and right now we just went through the bust phase of the internet. Because we've been learning how to use this new capital, productivity has been rising without the inputs of new labor. Economics dictates that this trend will change and labor inputs will be added once the mpL/mpK ratio with respect to w/v equalizes and we return to a long run steady growth state.

 

We're so prosperous, we in this country view this bump as something terrible. Business cycles happen, and there's very little a government can do to keep a business cycle on the uptick forever. Our recessions are mild, like a pinprick, compared to the recessions and depressions when the US was primarily manufacting and agri. The cycle's been smoothed a bit.

 

We're better off without these call centers and other low-skill, low-pay, highly automatiable jobs. If the US focuses on what it does best (innovate), then a long run perspective will see it always developing the best jobs and sending the worst (pay, work environment) to someone else who's running behind.

 

I find it VERY laughable that in this day an age, people blame the President for economic woes. Fiscal policy stimulus has been dead for a long time people, since Keynes rolled over about 3 times in his grave. There's too much lag and diffusion for these spending policies to work, because in the end we all KNOW we're going to have to pay it back through higher taxes.

 

Since the market became global, we have very little control over how our economy acts...when Asia fell, we fell...Europe falls, we falls. It's so interconnected right now the people we hold accountable aren't

 

I also echo Marney's sentiments on the drugs issue.

 

EDITS:

 

The Jungle. Great book. Filled with lies. A National Enquirer look at the meat processing plants. At least, thats what the last 50 years of research into it by historians and sociologists say.

 

Is protectionism good? There's only been one argument for protectionism that held water at some point, infant industry. As of today, no economist worth his salt will buy that argument. Governments can mandate certain sectors be subsidized due to other concerns (im mainly thinking defense here) but on economic grounds, there's no case.

 

Free trade hurts some as it displaces, but no country that made itself more open to free trade has been economically hurt.

 

We had an argument that the wages amongst these countries is wrong. It isn't. I refer to the Solow Growth model here. Check it out...conditional convergence...evidence exists that countries converge based around their savings rates...over time a poor country with low savings will catch up to rich country with low savings...if theyre in an open economy.

 

Head over to MarginalRevolution.com

Learn something

Edited March 30, 2004 by Stephen Joseph

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Neat.

 

The only part I take much issue with is the removal of the low-end jobs. It wouldn't seem prudent to me to ship the vast majority of the warehouses, factories, etc overseas. America is still a monster of production, and although my economics education spanned a wild nine weeks about 4 years ago, it still seems right to me that making and selling our own goods to the market abroad is what keeps us ticking at the core. Resources have to play a huge role here, too, don't they?

[Ripper 0]

Stephen, in Atlanta alone in the next 3 months 1000 jobs are going to be lost all in one field, call centers and customer service. Hewlett Packard, Bellsouth, AT&T...they are all sending their service centers overseas. Not because it will give the customers better service(and anyone that has tried to call a Helpdesk lately knows that) but simply because they can pay people criminally low wages in other countries.

 

I understand how outsourcing is suppose to work. I understand how it works in the manufacturing field, and while this HAS been the hardest hit field, jobs such as the ones above are fast becoming the hardest hit.

 

In the past, the outsourcing has been the gradual change to the next step. Of course horse carrige makers took a hit when the car was evented. We moved on to the next technological advancement. WHAT advancement is being made that justifies the lost of these customer service jobs?

 

In the past few months, telemarketing and now call center/customer service jobs are taking a huge loss, and I could give a shit about how it impacts the overall economy. We are talking about tens of thousands of people with NO income and no new jobs on the horizen. What are these people suppose to do? Where are their expertise supposed to be used.

 

Outsourcing has always happened, and thats all fine and good, but it is happening at greater numbers now and the government is pushing it harder at the expence of the American people.

 

We're better off without these call centers and other low-skill, low-pay, highly automatiable jobs. If the US focuses on what it does best (innovate), then a long run perspective will see it always developing the best jobs and sending the worst (pay, work environment) to someone else who's running behind.

 

That is all fine and well in theory. Of course this theory is dependant upon every American getting the opportunity to get the EXACT same education, and the EXACT same chances. This theory is just another that greatly benifits the priviedged and screws over the lower class. This theory is dependant on alot of things such as education reform and the like that are simply not happening. And are we suggesting that call center workers are out innovating new jobs now?

 

1: Underpants

 

2: ...

 

3: Profit

 

 

Thats what this whole thing is like now.

 

1: Outsource Jobs

 

2:

 

3: Better Economy.

 

All the things that are needed at number 2 to make the equation work are simply not happening. Job creation(although I see your argument that there will be an eventual upswing, the economy is already shaky, more kicks to the head isn't helping) education reform(not happening anytime soon) are what is needed.

 

So unless we all moved to happy bullshit land where Mike aparently lives where people can just work 80+ hours a week for half of their normal pay and still have a chance to find better work, because unemployment is evil, this is doing more harm than the eventual good believed it will do, IMO.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

AoO says:

Neat.

 

The only part I take much issue with is the removal of the low-end jobs. It wouldn't seem prudent to me to ship the vast majority of the warehouses, factories, etc overseas. America is still a monster of production, and although my economics education spanned a wild nine weeks about 4 years ago, it still seems right to me that making and selling our own goods to the market abroad is what keeps us ticking at the core. Resources have to play a huge role here, too, don't they?

 

 

-Okay. Let me try and dissect this. We don’t want low-end jobs, unless they’re necessary. We’ll always have a need for some. But over time we’ve seen America move up from factory workers to middle managers. In this modern economy, what we ship is mainly service, which has been said before I think. Resources are abundant and plenty, and I don’t think you’ll see America outsource its whole manufacturing economy…its cheaper to produce some things here (think transportation costs) Cement is locally produced and sold, there’s one example. But America’s future doesn’t like in producing stuff, its comparative and absolute advantage lies in the ability to create stuff. It takes a country with a lot of investment, capital, and high mpL to innovate, because products that are innovated cost more to build initially until “learning” occurs and the costs of production are lowered due to new techniques, materials, and general trial and error. Generally speaking, the US thinks up these products, starts producing them, then as the costs of production are lower, other countries begin to produce them, the production is outsourced, and we begin again with something else.

 

Ripper,

Sup my Atlanta friend. Let’s do this.

 

Stephen, in Atlanta alone in the next 3 months 1000 jobs are going to be lost all in one field, call centers and customer service. Hewlett Packard, Bellsouth, AT&T...they are all sending their service centers overseas. Not because it will give the customers better service(and anyone that has tried to call a Helpdesk lately knows that) but simply because they can pay people criminally low wages in other countries.

 

-Okay, firstly you’re making a fallacious argument that the wages are criminally low. Wages reflect the Marginal Productivity of Labor. If you correct the wage an Indian worker receives by his mpL and the Wage an America worker receives, you’ll see the ratio (American Wage/American MPL) will be very close to the ration (Indian Wage/Indian MPL). Wage disparity exists ONLY in nominal terms. Both the Indian worker and American worker are equally paid if you consider their MPL

-My fiancée used to work HelpDesk before she began a systems analyst. I know what’s happening in Atlanta.

 

 

I understand how outsourcing is suppose to work. I understand how it works in the manufacturing field, and while this HAS been the hardest hit field, jobs such as the ones above are fast becoming the hardest hit.

-It’s a transition.

 

In the past, the outsourcing has been the gradual change to the next step. Of course horse carrige makers took a hit when the car was evented. We moved on to the next technological advancement. WHAT advancement is being made that justifies the lost of these customer service jobs?

-Wrong. There was no gradual change from the carriage to the car. That sector was hit hard. What advancement justifies the loss? The internet has made costs of producing call centers cheaply. What it will do is free up labor for things that American labor is more Marginally Productive for, raising wages in the future. Most economists would tell you this argument doesn’t hold much water

 

In the past few months, telemarketing and now call center/customer service jobs are taking a huge loss, and I could give a shit about how it impacts the overall economy. We are talking about tens of thousands of people with NO income and no new jobs on the horizon. What are these people suppose to do? Where are their expertise supposed to be used.

-Should we have kept American farmers on traditional farming? Kept the carriage makers? Kept manufacturing? I’d assume you’d say it was a good thing we advanced from those. Same with these.

 

Outsourcing has always happened, and thats all fine and good, but it is happening at greater numbers now and the government is pushing it harder at the expence of the American people.

-It’s not happening in greater numbers. Outsourcing is a fancy word for relocation, and that’s been going on since the 50s. Overall, trend in US employment, total jobs, and PCI is WAY UP.

-Did you know that before the 1990s boom, everyone thought 6% unemployment was the natural rate of unemployment and that was considered very low? You must consider that if you fight unemployment with aggressive policies you raise inflation (Phillips cure). Technological innovation allowed for this relationship to change, pulling the US down to 3% unemployment without inflation. Maybe the natural rate changed, maybe it hasn’t and that’s why the economy isn’t recovering….we were performing well above average, and well, we’ve got to average being average.

 

That is all fine and well in theory. Of course this theory is dependant upon every American getting the opportunity to get the EXACT same education, and the EXACT same chances. This theory is just another that greatly benifits the priviedged and screws over the lower class. This theory is dependant on alot of things such as education reform and the like that are simply not happening. And are we suggesting that call center workers are out innovating new jobs now?

-Wrong. The theory isn’t dependent on educational opportunity. Besides, what lack of educational opportunity are we referring to? No nation in the world is as open to educational opportunities pre and post and continuing than America is, that’s why our human capital stock has risen so damn much and why we garner wages wayyy higher than most every other country.

 

So unless we all moved to happy bullshit land where Mike aparently lives where people can just work 80+ hours a week for half of their normal pay and still have a chance to find better work, because unemployment is evil, this is doing more harm than the eventual good believed it will do, IMO.

-Unemployment is not evil. There will always be a part of the economy being retrained. There will always be people switching between jobs. Specify the type of unemployment you’re talking about. Let’s talk about France. There’s evil unemployment? Why is it evil? Because their system gives incentives for workers to remain out of the work force, and by staying out of the workforce and NOT having the churn we have reduces their labor force’s human capital and a hysterisis effect sets in, they lose skills and become permanently unemployed.

 

Read up on the NAIRU, Samuel Becker’s human capital model, and a history of unemployment from the census bureau.

Things are not bad.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

EDIT: Just wanted to reiterate that if you account for Labor Productivity along with the nominal wage, you get a fairly even wage across all counties.

 

For instance, a programmer in the US makes 32000 (figure I pulled from corp data) while a programmer in India makes between 6000-8000. However, estimates have been taken which say a US worker is around 4-5% more productive than an Indian worker.

 

so if I say 100 as a base and set that as Indian productivity,then US worker is 400-500

 

3200/400=8000 3200/500=6400

 

No wage disparity

 

*Figures from US Census Bureau and National Bureau of Economic Research

[Guest MikeSC]

Free trade isn't allowing US citizens to take advantage of protectionism in other countries.

                        -=Mike

It's free trade. The key word is free.

 

How is it NOT protectionist? You yourself said:

I'll tell you now --- you eliminate the ability for these companies to turn a profit and these "miracule"[sp] cures that appear every so often will stop appearing as it's not worth the financial risk.

 

So, basically, it's just industry-favored protectionism.

No, it's not. As Marney pointed out, Canada FORCES these companies to sell their products at a loss. It is not protectionism to allow Canada's unfair policies to not come over to America.

(TheMikeSC @ Mar 29 2004, 10:43 PM)

You see, if I say something, I mean it. I'm not going to waffle on a heck of a lot. 

he problem is that you're so sure of yourself that you rarely even treat a different viewpoint with anything but "I'm right, so you're wrong."

AND?

If you refuse to bend any of your positions at all, what are you here for? At the worst, we'll annoy you, and at best we'll just reaffirm what you already believe. So go out there and, uh, go run for office or something.

Don't like the idea of whoring myself out for money, personally.

I view debate as intellectual exercise and nothing more. You're not going to convince anybody of anything.

Well, remind me not to take your bait next time. It's pretty unpleasant to talk to someone who thinks you're flat-out wrong simply because you don't totally agree with him.

No, I think you're wrong because you tend to be wrong.

well then this begs the question: What is your social status? 

To be generous, none of YOUR damned business.

It was a rhetorical question buddy, don't be an ass.

No, it was an attempt, by you, to be an ass and I simply won't play along with you.

I'd imagine kitchen work/landscaping is rather horrible pay, but for a single guy with a small amount of bills(assumption) of course this is a viable option for YOU, but you are not looking or just outright ignoring the fact that washing dishes and mowing lawns is just in no way a reality for a lot of people.

You assume I'd do just one job. You assumed I didn't hold several jobs at a time.

I'm SORRY that self-sufficiency scares so many here.

Actually, I didn't assume any of that.

Read the first sentence here from you.

Even if they were willing to do it, both at once, it still wouldn't pay for 1/2 their bills.  Hell Unemployment in itself would barely pay the bills, so it would be hardly desirable to replace a good paying job.   Also, the higher the wage you leave behind at a job, the harder it will be to find the same pay somewhere else.  This has nothing to do with "refusing to do a job I don't like" it is more the simple fact that these jobs, that they don't happen to like, would in no way pay the bills.

Then cut expenses.

Move if you have to.

Hold multiple jobs if you have to.

 

Don't snivel and whine about how "tough" it is.

Ok instead I will move to TheMikeSC's bubble on "planet your not working hard enough"

 

(I messed up the quote tags btw, but try and work it out )

I'd suggest you not move to "my world". Whining about how tough life is doesn't generate much empathy here.

Neat.

 

The only part I take much issue with is the removal of the low-end jobs. It wouldn't seem prudent to me to ship the vast majority of the warehouses, factories, etc overseas. America is still a monster of production, and although my economics education spanned a wild nine weeks about 4 years ago, it still seems right to me that making and selling our own goods to the market abroad is what keeps us ticking at the core. Resources have to play a huge role here, too, don't they?

But the problem with the low-end jobs is that, here, what you would have to pay somebody to actually do them could well end up being more than the job is actually worth.

 

You must keep one thing in mind: In business, you pay the employee LESS than the job is actually worth.

[Ripper 0]

-Unemployment is not evil. There will always be a part of the economy being retrained. There will always be people switching between jobs. Specify the type of unemployment you’re talking about.

Good stuff, just don't have time to respond to all of it now, but that comment was just a shot at Mike and his "Anyone that ever collects unemployment is a leech and it should NEVER be an option" bullshit.

[Guest MikeSC]

-Unemployment is not evil.  There will always be a part of the economy being retrained.  There will always be people switching between jobs.  Specify the type of unemployment you’re talking about.

Good stuff, just don't have time to respond to all of it now, but that comment was just a shot at Mike and his "Anyone that ever collects unemployment is a leech and it should NEVER be an option" bullshit.

You can find other jobs.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

-Unemployment is not evil.  There will always be a part of the economy being retrained.  There will always be people switching between jobs.  Specify the type of unemployment you’re talking about.

Good stuff, just don't have time to respond to all of it now, but that comment was just a shot at Mike and his "Anyone that ever collects unemployment is a leech and it should NEVER be an option" bullshit.

You can find other jobs.

-=Mike

Ones that don't pay enough. Of course, it would have been best for me to live on the street instead of taking that unemployment check. God knows it shouldn't have been the option.

 

Here is the equation: Mcdonalds fulltime = Not enough to pay rent and keep electricity on and/or food

 

Unemployment check that I EARNED - pays rent, gets me food and keeps electricity on...

 

 

Now...WHICH of these is NOT an option? In your world, number two, which means I either starve, don't have power or be homeless or all of the above. I understand you history of standing by your comments no matter how asinine they might be, but Jesus, you can't seriously stand there and say that collecting Unemployment should never be an option when it obviously is the sane option for plenty of americans losing their jobs to the outsourcing that you are saying is great for the country.

[Guest MikeSC]

-Unemployment is not evil.  There will always be a part of the economy being retrained.  There will always be people switching between jobs.  Specify the type of unemployment you’re talking about.

Good stuff, just don't have time to respond to all of it now, but that comment was just a shot at Mike and his "Anyone that ever collects unemployment is a leech and it should NEVER be an option" bullshit.

You can find other jobs.

-=Mike

Ones that don't pay enough. Of course, it would have been best for me to live on the street instead of taking that unemployment check. God knows it shouldn't have been the option.

 

Here is the equation: Mcdonalds fulltime = Not enough to pay rent and keep electricity on and/or food

 

Unemployment check that I EARNED - pays rent, gets me food and keeps electricity on...

 

 

Now...WHICH of these is NOT an option? In your world, number two, which means I either starve, don't have power or be homeless or all of the above. I understand you history of standing by your comments no matter how asinine they might be, but Jesus, you can't seriously stand there and say that collecting Unemployment should never be an option when it obviously is the sane option for plenty of americans losing their jobs to the outsourcing that you are saying is great for the country.

You can find jobs.

 

Personally, I couldn't live with myself if I drew unemployment.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

-Unemployment is not evil.  There will always be a part of the economy being retrained.  There will always be people switching between jobs.  Specify the type of unemployment you’re talking about.

Good stuff, just don't have time to respond to all of it now, but that comment was just a shot at Mike and his "Anyone that ever collects unemployment is a leech and it should NEVER be an option" bullshit.

You can find other jobs.

-=Mike

Ones that don't pay enough. Of course, it would have been best for me to live on the street instead of taking that unemployment check. God knows it shouldn't have been the option.

 

Here is the equation: Mcdonalds fulltime = Not enough to pay rent and keep electricity on and/or food

 

Unemployment check that I EARNED - pays rent, gets me food and keeps electricity on...

 

 

Now...WHICH of these is NOT an option? In your world, number two, which means I either starve, don't have power or be homeless or all of the above. I understand you history of standing by your comments no matter how asinine they might be, but Jesus, you can't seriously stand there and say that collecting Unemployment should never be an option when it obviously is the sane option for plenty of americans losing their jobs to the outsourcing that you are saying is great for the country.

You can find jobs.

 

Personally, I couldn't live with myself if I drew unemployment.

-=Mike

I'm sure living with eating garbage would be alot easier.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Jobber: My old man got lost his job at Heinz in the early '80s, so I feel your pain.

 

MikeSC: You may think of me as a gay leech, but I still like you anyway...

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Unemployment is great thing for helping people in transition...the system's still flawed though.

 

Rip, sorry if I was too combative. I'm fiercely loyal to economic thought, which is why I hate both parties as they warp it. If you concentrate on anything , focus in on the wage disparity issue...An Indian worker doesn't replace an American worker on a 1 to 1 ratio because of productivity issues.

 

And if I come across as insensitive, I'm not. It sucks for those displaced, I'm just looking at the whole forest and over the long-run. By promoting free trade the government does make everyone better off, but it can (and this should be done locally, not nationally) help those who become displaced...and unemployment for transitional/displacement along with job retraining programs are good.

 

The Education argument you mention affects the US economy by helping people participate in it...and at the margin some groups could be locked out in the long run. However, the government is not the end-solution to this problem. I'm not really concerned about education given the recent uptick in the reported figures coming out. Its solving itself laissez-faire style, and even with the educational problems of the last 30 years things have sorted themselves out nicely.

 

If you took US Per Capita Income in 1900 and applied that with the purchasing power it hadm, the US would be a middle of the road country like several European countries in terms of economic significance.

 

Hows that for an interesting figure? America 100 years ago had workers better off than half the world today does

[Guest MikeSC]

Jobber: My old man got lost his job at Heinz in the early '80s, so I feel your pain.

 

MikeSC: You may think of me as a gay leech, but I still like you anyway...

Oh, I'd never assume you were "gay"

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

-Unemployment is not evil.  There will always be a part of the economy being retrained.  There will always be people switching between jobs.  Specify the type of unemployment you’re talking about.

Good stuff, just don't have time to respond to all of it now, but that comment was just a shot at Mike and his "Anyone that ever collects unemployment is a leech and it should NEVER be an option" bullshit.

You can find other jobs.

-=Mike

Ones that don't pay enough. Of course, it would have been best for me to live on the street instead of taking that unemployment check. God knows it shouldn't have been the option.

 

Here is the equation: Mcdonalds fulltime = Not enough to pay rent and keep electricity on and/or food

 

Unemployment check that I EARNED - pays rent, gets me food and keeps electricity on...

 

 

Now...WHICH of these is NOT an option? In your world, number two, which means I either starve, don't have power or be homeless or all of the above. I understand you history of standing by your comments no matter how asinine they might be, but Jesus, you can't seriously stand there and say that collecting Unemployment should never be an option when it obviously is the sane option for plenty of americans losing their jobs to the outsourcing that you are saying is great for the country.

You can find jobs.

 

Personally, I couldn't live with myself if I drew unemployment.

-=Mike

I'm sure living with eating garbage would be alot easier.

Never happened to me. If losing your job would cause you to eat garbage, I feel bad for you.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

-Unemployment is not evil.  There will always be a part of the economy being retrained.  There will always be people switching between jobs.  Specify the type of unemployment you’re talking about.

Good stuff, just don't have time to respond to all of it now, but that comment was just a shot at Mike and his "Anyone that ever collects unemployment is a leech and it should NEVER be an option" bullshit.

You can find other jobs.

-=Mike

Ones that don't pay enough. Of course, it would have been best for me to live on the street instead of taking that unemployment check. God knows it shouldn't have been the option.

 

Here is the equation: Mcdonalds fulltime = Not enough to pay rent and keep electricity on and/or food

 

Unemployment check that I EARNED - pays rent, gets me food and keeps electricity on...

 

 

Now...WHICH of these is NOT an option? In your world, number two, which means I either starve, don't have power or be homeless or all of the above. I understand you history of standing by your comments no matter how asinine they might be, but Jesus, you can't seriously stand there and say that collecting Unemployment should never be an option when it obviously is the sane option for plenty of americans losing their jobs to the outsourcing that you are saying is great for the country.

You can find jobs.

 

Personally, I couldn't live with myself if I drew unemployment.

-=Mike

I'm sure living with eating garbage would be alot easier.

Never happened to me. If losing your job would cause you to eat garbage, I feel bad for you.

-=Mike

Please tell me you aren't one of those, Every homeless person got there through crack and booze people. PLEASE.

 

Job pays money, Money buys food, you eat food. Remove the first and the other two fall.

[Guest MikeSC]

-Unemployment is not evil.  There will always be a part of the economy being retrained.  There will always be people switching between jobs.  Specify the type of unemployment you’re talking about.

Good stuff, just don't have time to respond to all of it now, but that comment was just a shot at Mike and his "Anyone that ever collects unemployment is a leech and it should NEVER be an option" bullshit.

You can find other jobs.

-=Mike

Ones that don't pay enough. Of course, it would have been best for me to live on the street instead of taking that unemployment check. God knows it shouldn't have been the option.

 

Here is the equation: Mcdonalds fulltime = Not enough to pay rent and keep electricity on and/or food

 

Unemployment check that I EARNED - pays rent, gets me food and keeps electricity on...

 

 

Now...WHICH of these is NOT an option? In your world, number two, which means I either starve, don't have power or be homeless or all of the above. I understand you history of standing by your comments no matter how asinine they might be, but Jesus, you can't seriously stand there and say that collecting Unemployment should never be an option when it obviously is the sane option for plenty of americans losing their jobs to the outsourcing that you are saying is great for the country.

You can find jobs.

 

Personally, I couldn't live with myself if I drew unemployment.

-=Mike

I'm sure living with eating garbage would be alot easier.

Never happened to me. If losing your job would cause you to eat garbage, I feel bad for you.

-=Mike

Please tell me you aren't one of those, Every homeless person got there through crack and booze people. PLEASE.

 

Job pays money, Money buys food, you eat food. Remove the first and the other two fall.

Oh, I'm sorry --- the vast majority of homeless AREN'T drug addicts or people with severe mental issues.

 

My mistake. They're just unlucky.

 

Man, keeping a straight face typing that is hard.

-=Mike

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Umm...guys? I love the debate but chill on the rectangular quotes from hell

[NoCalMike 0]

=TheMikeSC,Mar 30 2004, 04:55 PM] .

Never happened to me. If losing your job would cause you to eat garbage, I feel bad for you.

-=Mike

It wouldn't cause me too eat garbage personally, because I don't make a huge wage to begin with, but lets take someone making 80,000 - 100,000 a year. They lose their job, and according to you, should just suck it up and flip burgers & mow lawns. Ok fine, so the combined income of both of those comes out to about $28,000 a year. With that said/assumed, how in the hell do you pay the bills for the 2-3 months it takes you find a new job? Move to another house you say, ok fine, but living in a 200-300,000 dollar home, it will be on the market for a couple of months, so once again, it isn't just a matter of "move if you have to" I just don't see how you are addressing the reality of the situation. I said, that in my present situation, I wouldn't need unemployment, basically because I am single and can make ends meet with a lower-scale job, but for someone with a high paying job and the bills that go along with that lifestyle, just how in the hell would McDonalds/landscaping be a viable option for the 2-3 months it takes to find an equal paying job to the one they lost?

[Ripper 0]

Plus it cost mooney to move. Downpayment, moving cost, utility transfers. And this is all assuming we are dealing with a single person. Throw some kids in there and you are living in a shelter. But fuck the kids, work at Mcdonalds. At least you won't be a leech.

[Guest MikeSC]

Plus it cost mooney to move. Downpayment, moving cost, utility transfers. And this is all assuming we are dealing with a single person. Throw some kids in there and you are living in a shelter. But fuck the kids, work at Mcdonalds. At least you won't be a leech.

Again, it's interesting to see how threatening self-sufficiency is to some people.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

I do gather from your opinon I have much larger grasp on self-sufficiency than you do.

 

Its about how to survive when something like that happens, not be a idiot and lose your home, have no food, but at least you don't "leech" from the money you earned.

[Guest MikeSC]

I do gather from your opinon I have much larger grasp on self-sufficiency than you do.

 

Its about how to survive when something like that happens, not be a idiot and lose your home, have no food, but at least you don't "leech" from the money you earned.

Hmm, never been homeless myself. I seem to do fine on my own, thanks for your concern.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

I do gather from your opinon I have much larger grasp on self-sufficiency than you do. 

 

Its about how to survive when something like that happens, not be a idiot and lose your home, have no food, but at least you don't "leech" from the money you earned.

Hmm, never been homeless myself. I seem to do fine on my own, thanks for your concern.

-=Mike

What in that sentence makes you think I was asking or gave a shit?

 

Not to sound combative, but really. I wasn't saying you did/were. Its obvious that you've never been homeless. It sounds obvious that you've never had to worry about fending for yourself either, but hey maybe thats just what I was reading into it.

[Guest MikeSC]

I do gather from your opinon I have much larger grasp on self-sufficiency than you do. 

 

Its about how to survive when something like that happens, not be a idiot and lose your home, have no food, but at least you don't "leech" from the money you earned.

Hmm, never been homeless myself. I seem to do fine on my own, thanks for your concern.

-=Mike

What in that sentence makes you think I was asking or gave a shit?

 

Not to sound combative, but really. I wasn't saying you did/were. Its obvious that you've never been homeless. It sounds obvious that you've never had to worry about fending for yourself either, but hey maybe thats just what I was reading into it.

I've managed to make ends meet on my own.

 

And, with that, I'm done with this. This debate ceased being interesting a while ago.

-=Mike

[MrRant 0]

That's because you have been owned by multiple people and the only way for you to save face is to be an ignorant jackass.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

All my statements are based on people in general, not specific types...economic research counts all costs and benefits

 

 

theyre much wiser than me

[Guest Brian]

When did Rant do the face turn on Mike?