Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

"Never Worked a Day in My Life": Urban Myth?


Off-Topic Discussions

351 to 400 of 754 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Charlie Bell wrote:
You can feel free to dismiss anything I say whenever you like. You continue to misrepresent what I have written in this thread. I think I'm done here.

With all due respect, if you're going to participate, you have to expect people to disagree with you. While you're obviously free to simply drop out claiming misrepresentation, I hardly see the point of speaking up at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:

It is it not an exageration. Last time I lived in public housing nearly half the other families were doing exactly this. Their primary impediments to employment? (Besides a lack of education and criminal records.) A minimum wage job would have drastically reduced their standard of living.

Perhaps that suggests that the minimum wage is too low?


thejeff wrote:
Artanthos wrote:

It is it not an exageration. Last time I lived in public housing nearly half the other families were doing exactly this. Their primary impediments to employment? (Besides a lack of education and criminal records.) A minimum wage job would have drastically reduced their standard of living.

Perhaps that suggests that the minimum wage is too low?

My thoughts exactly.

If the minimum wage were tied to the CPI, meaning that we ensured the minimum allowable wage under the law would buy the same amount year to year in food and rent rather than shrinking, it would today be $10.57. As it happens that's about $.25 less than what I make after working at my job for over 2 years.


I arrested someone today on an assault warrant. Both he and the complainant, who are married, are unemployed. They both receive government checks. (He gets SSI for "anxiety attacks". She gets cash for her kids, who are not his. His kids all live with their respective mothers.) He had $400 cash in his pocket when I arrested him. They live in a rented house. He was articulate when explaining that the charges against him were lies. His physique was impressive, being a solid 240 pounds of muscle. He claimed that he didn't hear us blaring the horn and demanding that he exit the house over the loudspeaker because he was up late drinking. This was about 10 in the morning on a Thursday. He didn't come out until I started to knock his door down.

The incident itself, which happened a week ago, was at the complainant's mother's residence. The complainant, her mother, and her cousin, all of whom are unemployed and receiving government assistance, were out all day drinking, smoking marijuana, and playing cards and dominos.

It's a way of life. It is multigenerational. Our tax dollars are subsidizing the lifestyles of those too lazy to work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Barcas wrote:
It's a way of life. It is multigenerational. Our tax dollars are subsidizing the lifestyles of those too lazy to work.

No question.

Now what you need to show is 1)he isn't legitimately entitled to SSI for panic attacks 2)he would better serve society in a job 3)that there is somewhere that would hire him 4)that you could somehow force him to stay there 5)that people like him make up a significant portion (>5%) of "safety net" beneficiaries.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't suffice for these things.


1) Considering that he calmly accepted that he was going to jail, probably for a year or more, on his 14th arrest, and did not have a panic attack, he seems okay to me. He didn't tell the jail that he takes any medication for it.
2) Having a job when you're able-bodied and able-minded? I think that's clearly in society's interest.
3) I wouldn't hire him, but that's not my problem. Someone would, even if it's just for digging ditches or something.
4) This is also not my problem. If he doesn't want to work when capable of it, why should we be forced to subsidize his lifestyle?
5) It's absolutely more than 5% of the safety net. I deal with people like them on a daily basis, considerably more often than I deal with people in actual need. It's phenomonally widespread. Before you go tell me that I only deal with criminals, I guarantee you that I deal with a far, far wider cut of the population than just criminals.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1)You are not a phychiatrist and unable to make this call.
2)Having a job does not, in itself, contribute to society.
3)It may not be your problem but it is OUR problem.
4)Ditto.
5)Your word doesn't sway my opinion. Show me evidence.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

We currently have an official (U3) unemployment rate over 8%. The U6 rate is almost 15%. The rate among poorly educated young adult males is even higher. That is not caused by lazy people not wanting to work.

To say "Someone would hire him, even just for digging ditches", is nonsense.

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Baracas wrote:
3) I wouldn't hire him, but that's not my problem. Someone would, even if it's just for digging ditches or something.

Why would anyone hire him if you wouldn't? Its not like there isn't a large pool of people who aren't proven screwups just waiting to be hired.

And why om earth would he work for less money than he's getting paid to do nothing? After you pay for a car, car insuramce, and gas to go to work you're lucky to bring home more than what the government considers the basic neccesities: food shelter and medical (and a tv)


The actual unemployment (or more accuartely, non-working) rate is much closer to 40%.

It's not hard to get a job if you're willing to work hard. Go pick apples! Farmers in several states with anti-illegal immigrant laws (Alabama, for instance) are having difficulty filling their positions because the work is hard for low pay.

So, BNW, what you suggest is that we pay for his lifestyle in perpetuity, while he makes no attempt to get a job and simply goes in and out of jail? That's a policy that makes sense.

Meatrace - I think that if you're disabled enough to be unable to work, your symptoms really ought to be pretty self-evident. (Especially if you're claiming something vague like anxiety attacks.) If someone were out of work because of a bad knee, but I had to chase him down to arrest him, I think that it's pretty clear that his knee's not all that bad. In this case, he was put in a very stressful situation (police kicking down his door to serve a felony warrant) without the faintest trace of anxiety. Either the medication he doesn't take is super-effective or he doesn't actually have a problem.

I think that we are going to fundamentally disagree. I see rampant abuse of the system (much of which is legal because of the ease of qualification to those that know how) on a daily basis. Some cases, like this one, are pretty egregious.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
And why om earth would he work for less money than he's getting paid to do nothing? After you pay for a car, car insuramce, and gas to go to work you're lucky to bring home more than what the government considers the basic neccesities: food shelter and medical (and a tv)

This is the problem. Our generosity in providing assistance instead fosters dependency. Why work when you can live off others for free? You can smoke, get high, get drunk, watch television, hang out with your friends, and have as many kids as you want! It's like permanent summer vacation and taxpayers are the parents.


And I see rampant police abuse which you have told me is just bad luck. I guess you don't like the door swinging the other way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Indeed #3 is the greatest problem. If no one's going to hire him for whatever reason, be it good or bad, legal or illegal, then the multi generational problem is being subsidized by the same people who are paying for him to live there.

Moreover, I would add that this person is a criminal- I hope you to are not judging people on assistance by his own poor example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Barcas wrote:
I think that we are going to fundamentally disagree. I see rampant abuse of the system (much of which is legal because of the ease of qualification to those that know how) on a daily basis. Some cases, like this one, are pretty egregious.

On the contrary -- on these points, I think we all totally agree. The difference here is that, when asked for practical solutions to the problem that don't cost more than the problem itself, you reset to ranting about how there's a problem.

(1) Is there a problem with people scamming the system?.
(2) Yes, there is. We all agree.
(3) How do you fix it so that the solution isn't worse than the problem?
(4) Answer cannot be "go back to step 1."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Barcas wrote:

1) Considering that he calmly accepted that he was going to jail, probably for a year or more, on his 14th arrest, and did not have a panic attack, he seems okay to me. He didn't tell the jail that he takes any medication for it.

2) Having a job when you're able-bodied and able-minded? I think that's clearly in society's interest.
3) I wouldn't hire him, but that's not my problem. Someone would, even if it's just for digging ditches or something.
4) This is also not my problem. If he doesn't want to work when capable of it, why should we be forced to subsidize his lifestyle?
5) It's absolutely more than 5% of the safety net. I deal with people like them on a daily basis, considerably more often than I deal with people in actual need. It's phenomonally widespread. Before you go tell me that I only deal with criminals, I guarantee you that I deal with a far, far wider cut of the population than just criminals.

Are we subsidizing it more in jail?


DM Barcas wrote:
Why work when you can live off others for free?

Why work when no one will pay you what your labor is worth?

As to your question about paying for them in perpetuity: yes. Not because it's a morally right thing to do, but because the cost of rooting them out while protecting everyone who does need the assistance would be more costly than allowing the abuse to continue.

At some point you will reach that area of diminishing returns. What I'm proposing is that maybe we're already there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Barcas wrote:

The actual unemployment (or more accuartely, non-working) rate is much closer to 40%.

It's not hard to get a job if you're willing to work hard. Go pick apples! Farmers in several states with anti-illegal immigrant laws (Alabama, for instance) are having difficulty filling their positions because the work is hard for low pay.

An unemployment rate near 40% means it's not hard to get a job?

That's obviously the solution. Everyone who can't find a job should become a migrant worker. It worked so well for the Okies in the 30s.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
DM Barcas wrote:
I think that we are going to fundamentally disagree. I see rampant abuse of the system (much of which is legal because of the ease of qualification to those that know how) on a daily basis. Some cases, like this one, are pretty egregious.

On the contrary -- on these points, I think we all totally agree. The difference here is that, when asked for practical solutions to the problem that don't cost more than the problem itself, you reset to ranting about how there's a problem.

(1) Is there a problem with people scamming the system?.
(2) Yes, there is. We all agree.
(3) How do you fix it so that the solution isn't worse than the problem?
(4) Answer cannot be "go back to step 1."

If fixing a problem costs more not fixing it everything considered than fixing it is irrational.


DM Barcas wrote:

The actual unemployment (or more accuartely, non-working) rate is much closer to 40%.

It's not hard to get a job if you're willing to work hard. Go pick apples! Farmers in several states with anti-illegal immigrant laws (Alabama, for instance) are having difficulty filling their positions because the work is hard for low pay.

So, BNW, what you suggest is that we pay for his lifestyle in perpetuity, while he makes no attempt to get a job and simply goes in and out of jail? That's a policy that makes sense.

Meatrace - I think that if you're disabled enough to be unable to work, your symptoms really ought to be pretty self-evident. (Especially if you're claiming something vague like anxiety attacks.) If someone were out of work because of a bad knee, but I had to chase him down to arrest him, I think that it's pretty clear that his knee's not all that bad. In this case, he was put in a very stressful situation (police kicking down his door to serve a felony warrant) without the faintest trace of anxiety. Either the medication he doesn't take is super-effective or he doesn't actually have a problem.

I think that we are going to fundamentally disagree. I see rampant abuse of the system (much of which is legal because of the ease of qualification to those that know how) on a daily basis. Some cases, like this one, are pretty egregious.

I don't think you realize what 40% unemployment would look like in this country. For one, you wouldn't have your job, because your town would be broke and unable to pay your salary. I don't just mean unable to afford it, I mean there wouldn't be an HR guy and there wouldn't be a bank for him to send it to. If you did get paid, it'd probably be in potatoes and goat milk.


Irontruth wrote:

I don't think you realize what 40% unemployment would look like in this country. For one, you wouldn't have your job, because your town would be broke and unable to pay your salary. I don't just mean unable to afford it, I mean there wouldn't be an HR guy and there wouldn't be a bank for him to send it to. If you did get paid, it'd probably be in potatoes and goat milk.

I think you are going a bit to the extreme. Southern Spain is above 40% unemployment and, while they are not really having a happy time, it's not like society broke down into biker gangs trading in bear pelts either.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

The 40% unemployment figure might be based on the layman concept of unemployment instead of what the government means when it describes unemployment. If you took into account, say, all stay at home mothers and labeled them unemployed, you might hit 40%. The unemployment rate that most people quote is based on the number of people actively looking for work.

Still, it's an odd way to calculate unemployment given that a higher unemployment rate undercuts the argument sought to be advanced (i.e., that anyone can get a job if they look).


I think by 40% he may be talking labor force participation (or it's inverse) which is in the low 60s, but that includes retirees, students, etc. People who don't need to or want to work. Maybe kids, I'm not sure.

Which does include those on SSI disability, but that's a pretty small percentage, less than 2%.

Of course, I have seen crackpot claims about real unemployment near 40%. It's possible he actually means that.


That the labor force participation rate is what that is called. Also if you use that as a measure of unemployment most illegal aliens are here to work so illegal aliens would cause the unemployment rate to go down if taht were the case. Also we could reduce unemployment by secretly deporting people on welfare.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's kind of funny that in all the endless debate over welfare the issue of corporate welfare never seems to come up. The amount of free taxpayer money flowing to big business through tax breaks, subsidies, and just plain old handouts is staggering, especially considering that almost all of the recipients are already profitable. People scamming welfare bothers me, but it doesn't bother me half as much as what Walmart or the finance industry gets away with. Ironically, people in bottom-end jobs commonly claim legitimate government aid (particularly with children), meaning that tax dollars are effectively subsidizing their salary.


BadBird wrote:
It's kind of funny that in all the endless debate over welfare the issue of corporate welfare never seems to come up. The amount of free taxpayer money flowing to big business through tax breaks, subsidies, and just plain old handouts is staggering, especially considering that almost all of the recipients are already profitable. People scamming welfare bothers me, but it doesn't bother me half as much as what Walmart or the finance industry gets away with. Ironically, people in bottom-end jobs commonly claim legitimate government aid (particularly with children), meaning that tax dollars are effectively subsidizing their salary.

Yeah, but those are good upstanding citizens not low-life scum, so it's fine to shovel millions of our tax dollars to them.

Besides if we throw enough money at them maybe they'll create some jobs for the rest of us. Maybe some of those jobs will even be in this country.


Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I don't think you realize what 40% unemployment would look like in this country. For one, you wouldn't have your job, because your town would be broke and unable to pay your salary. I don't just mean unable to afford it, I mean there wouldn't be an HR guy and there wouldn't be a bank for him to send it to. If you did get paid, it'd probably be in potatoes and goat milk.

I think you are going a bit to the extreme. Southern Spain is above 40% unemployment and, while they are not really having a happy time, it's not like society broke down into biker gangs trading in bear pelts either.

The problem with this example is one of scale. I'm assuming he's talking about the entire US. You're referring to 1/3 of one nation in Europe. A nation that is receiving financial support from several other nations, helping to prop it up.

Labor Force Participation has as much to do with age demographics as it does the economy, both influence it quite a bit, but an aging population in the US is going to push that number down for the next 30 years fairly significantly, regardless of economics.

The Great Depression peaked at 24.9% unemployment in 1933. Looking at some of the problems that happened in this country during that period, I don't think it's crazy to think that at 40% unemployment, the government and most of society is going to have difficulty operating the way we do right now. Sure, I used some hyperbole, but if the worlds largest economy experiences 40% unemployment, no one is going to be able to bail us out of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I don't think you realize what 40% unemployment would look like in this country. For one, you wouldn't have your job, because your town would be broke and unable to pay your salary. I don't just mean unable to afford it, I mean there wouldn't be an HR guy and there wouldn't be a bank for him to send it to. If you did get paid, it'd probably be in potatoes and goat milk.

I think you are going a bit to the extreme. Southern Spain is above 40% unemployment and, while they are not really having a happy time, it's not like society broke down into biker gangs trading in bear pelts either.

The problem with this example is one of scale. I'm assuming he's talking about the entire US. You're referring to 1/3 of one nation in Europe. A nation that is receiving financial support from several other nations, helping to prop it up.

Labor Force Participation has as much to do with age demographics as it does the economy, both influence it quite a bit, but an aging population in the US is going to push that number down for the next 30 years fairly significantly, regardless of economics.

The Great Depression peaked at 24.9% unemployment in 1933. Looking at some of the problems that happened in this country during that period, I don't think it's crazy to think that at 40% unemployment, the government and most of society is going to have difficulty operating the way we do right now. Sure, I used some hyperbole, but if the worlds largest economy experiences 40% unemployment, no one is going to be able to bail us out of it.

Fundamentally unemployment doesn't really matter. Considering CEO salaries and corporate profits have recovered to new record levels, I'm not sure we'd need anyone else to bail us out. Unfortunately I'm not sure they think they need us any more.

We look too much sometimes at money and worry too much about how the things we need will be paid for. We forget that money is a fiction. It's a very convenient and useful fiction. Without it, civilization couldn't really function, but it's still a fiction. What matters is the actual goods and services that it's a proxy for.

What matters isn't how much money we have or how many people are unemployed. That's all about distribution and incentive. Can we still produce enough goods and services to support us all?

One of the "problems" of the modern economy is that we can produce more stuff with less people. That's part of the reality behind this crisis. We don't need everyone to work to make enough stuff for us all. For awhile we handled this by going full on consumerism, but we seem to have gone past that now.
Seriously, if we can make the same amount of stuff with half the man hours, do we really need to make twice as much stuff to keep everyone employed? Wouldn't it make more sense to work half as much?

But it's more profitable to keep a pool of surplus labor. Keeps costs down and profits high.

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Barcas wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
And why om earth would he work for less money than he's getting paid to do nothing? After you pay for a car, car insuramce, and gas to go to work you're lucky to bring home more than what the government considers the basic neccesities: food shelter and medical (and a tv)
This is the problem.

It is HALF the problem. It is a problem, it needs to be cracked down on, but it is not going to stop until you fix the entire problem: that the system is rigged against low income workers. Not only do they contend with low wages, but high expenses and high taxes. After property taxes (directly or indirectly), income tax, sales tax, state required vehicle car insurance, medicare tax. social security tax... you pay a higher percentage of your income to the government than a Romney. What you have left is not enough for a living is more like surviving.

People should be able to work hard and get ahead but they cant. Its the red queens race the faster you go the faster the ground moves under you. the only way to win is to cheat. case in point...

When you tell someone to go pick apples you're telling someone to break the law and take a job illegally and off the books with no payroll taxes, unempolyment insurance, or workers comp insurance: because thats what those sorts of jobs are.

If you tell Billy bob there "no welfare for you!" you wind up incarcerating him to the tune of 35k a year... if you can't shoot him in the head its cheaper to send him a check.

I've worked with prison crews before:you're not getting your money back that way, they had more rights than we did (rain? they don't work in it. 20 degrees? oh hell no, Get out on the ice? Not in your dreams. Snakes? Send that guy in first to find them...)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
doctor_wu wrote:
DM Barcas wrote:

1) Considering that he calmly accepted that he was going to jail, probably for a year or more, on his 14th arrest, and did not have a panic attack, he seems okay to me. He didn't tell the jail that he takes any medication for it.

2) Having a job when you're able-bodied and able-minded? I think that's clearly in society's interest.
3) I wouldn't hire him, but that's not my problem. Someone would, even if it's just for digging ditches or something.
4) This is also not my problem. If he doesn't want to work when capable of it, why should we be forced to subsidize his lifestyle?
5) It's absolutely more than 5% of the safety net. I deal with people like them on a daily basis, considerably more often than I deal with people in actual need. It's phenomonally widespread. Before you go tell me that I only deal with criminals, I guarantee you that I deal with a far, far wider cut of the population than just criminals.
Are we subsidizing it more in jail?

I've always wondered this. There has to be a better, more practical way to deter crime/rehabilitate criminals. Ive always wondered who exactly came to the conclusion that we should (for instance) make drugs illegal causing them to be super expensive and thus an easy way for the poor to make money without working a real job (like a pharmacist), then arrest them, pay tens of thousands of dollars a year to house them, then throw them back out with no hope of ever getting a real job because theyve been arrested. Rinse, repeat.

Theres got to be a better way.


thejeff wrote:

Fundamentally unemployment doesn't really matter. Considering CEO salaries and corporate profits have recovered to new record levels, I'm not sure we'd need anyone else to bail us out. Unfortunately I'm not sure they think they need us any more.

We look too much sometimes at money and worry too much about how the things we need will be paid for. We forget that money is a fiction. It's a very convenient and useful fiction. Without it, civilization couldn't really function, but it's still a fiction. What matters is the actual goods and services that it's a proxy for.

What matters isn't how much money we have or how many people are unemployed. That's all about distribution and incentive. Can we still produce enough goods and services to support us all?

One of the "problems" of the modern economy is that we can produce more stuff with less people. That's part of the reality behind this crisis. We don't need everyone to work to make enough stuff for us all. For awhile we handled this by going full on consumerism, but we seem to have gone past that now.
Seriously, if we can make the same amount of stuff with half the man hours, do we really need to make twice as much stuff to keep everyone employed? Wouldn't it make more sense to work half as much?

But it's more profitable to keep a pool of surplus labor. Keeps costs down and profits high.

I mostly agree with your viewpoints on the economy. Money isn't real, but it isn't fictional either. The economy we have today would not be possible without it, building a TV in Asia and shipping it to Ohio would be impossible with a barter system.

I agree that the wealth disparity is a problem. One of Henry Ford's few good ideas was to pay his guys enough to buy the product they made.

Also, I enjoy the fact that the NFL uses distributed wealth, salary caps and unions... but even the 'struggling' teams make more Sales Per Employee than Apple.

Scarab Sages

DM Barcas wrote:

The actual unemployment (or more accuartely, non-working) rate is much closer to 40%.

It is a little more difficult than that. Nearly all retail positions these days require you to apply online.

All online job applications are run through 3rd party screening, including personality and prior applications submitted. The companies running the screening process are used industry wide.

If you do not match certain a certain profile (as determined by a computer generated rule set via data-mining) the application will be rejected without ever being seen by a human.

As for the unemployment rate. My daughter has been looking for work for several months now. Check out the unemployment rate for young adults in D.C.

Link

A new pizza place opened around the corner from where I live two weeks ago. They received over 1500 applications on the first day. That is for part-time, minimum-wage, must have completely open availability.

The McDonald's down the street? Not only do they pay minimum wage, they charge 50 cents an hour rental on work uniforms. For a 20 hour-a-week job, must have 24-7 availability, must be bilingual.

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:


When you tell someone to go pick apples you're telling someone to break the law and take a job illegally and off the books with no payroll taxes, unempolyment insurance, or workers comp insurance: because thats what those sorts of jobs are.

This exactly describes my step-father. He worked picking crops in Florida his entire life. It is a strictly off-the-books job. Often below minimum wage. With zero safety net if anything happens.

He is 65 now, can no longer get hired and has no Social Security.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Fundamentally unemployment doesn't really matter. Considering CEO salaries and corporate profits have recovered to new record levels, I'm not sure we'd need anyone else to bail us out. Unfortunately I'm not sure they think they need us any more.

We look too much sometimes at money and worry too much about how the things we need will be paid for. We forget that money is a fiction. It's a very convenient and useful fiction. Without it, civilization couldn't really function, but it's still a fiction. What matters is the actual goods and services that it's a proxy for.

What matters isn't how much money we have or how many people are unemployed. That's all about distribution and incentive. Can we still produce enough goods and services to support us all?

One of the "problems" of the modern economy is that we can produce more stuff with less people. That's part of the reality behind this crisis. We don't need everyone to work to make enough stuff for us all. For awhile we handled this by going full on consumerism, but we seem to have gone past that now.
Seriously, if we can make the same amount of stuff with half the man hours, do we really need to make twice as much stuff to keep everyone employed? Wouldn't it make more sense to work half as much?

But it's more profitable to keep a pool of surplus labor. Keeps costs down and profits high.

I think this almost perfectly sums up my feelings on the global economic climate.

We have, since the industrial revolution, had an economy predicated on geometric growth at the same time as increased worker productivity. We have, to use a rather gonzo metaphor, squeezed all the toothpaste down to one end. We have also (perhaps incorrectly) correlated this economic model with social and technological progress, but we are reaching a hard limit.

If, in a vacuum and with appropriate technology, we can sustain our existence with 2-3 hours a day of actual work, why are we killing ourselves and still scraping by? We need to implement a more economically and ecologically sustainable model.

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Meatrace wrote:
If, in a vacuum and with appropriate technology, we can sustain our existence with 2-3 hours a day of actual work, why are we killing ourselves and still scraping by? We need to implement a more economically and ecologically sustainable model.

Because the people running the show don't want to be SUSTAINED. YOU need to work for 8 hours a day and get the fruit of 2 hours a day because they want the fruit of the other 6.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Meatrace wrote:
If, in a vacuum and with appropriate technology, we can sustain our existence with 2-3 hours a day of actual work, why are we killing ourselves and still scraping by? We need to implement a more economically and ecologically sustainable model.
Because the people running the show don't want to be SUSTAINED. YOU need to work for 8 hours a day and get the fruit of 2 hours a day because they want the fruit of the other 6.

Well yes, that's clearly the answer. I suppose the follow-up question is strongly implied: why do we lump it like a bunch of slaves?

Dare...dare I say it?

INTERNATIONAL PROLETARIAN SOCIALIST REVOLUTION

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Meatrace wrote:
If, in a vacuum and with appropriate technology, we can sustain our existence with 2-3 hours a day of actual work, why are we killing ourselves and still scraping by? We need to implement a more economically and ecologically sustainable model.
Because the people running the show don't want to be SUSTAINED. YOU need to work for 8 hours a day and get the fruit of 2 hours a day because they want the fruit of the other 6.

Well yes, that's clearly the answer. I suppose the follow-up question is strongly implied: why do we lump it like a bunch of slaves?

Dare...dare I say it?

INTERNATIONAL PROLETARIAN SOCIALIST REVOLUTION

Oh man, now Anklebiter, or his podpersonreplacement, is going to sue you for copyright infringement.

What have you done, Meatrace, what have you done?!!?!


In the communist utopia, there is no copyright.
So I think I'm safe.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
meatrace wrote:

In the communist utopia, there is no copyright.

So I think I'm safe.

I dunno. Show trial sof the filthy capitalist oppressor pig dog scum who use the words of the people without consent are still possible.


No. I think if anything Anklebiter would be pleased at the spread of his clarion call.

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

Meatrace wrote:
Well yes, that's clearly the answer. I suppose the follow-up question is strongly implied: why do we lump it like a bunch of slaves?

Because they've got people convinced that anything else is unamerican and kills puppies.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Meatrace wrote:
Well yes, that's clearly the answer. I suppose the follow-up question is strongly implied: why do we lump it like a bunch of slaves?
Because they've got people convinced that anything else is unamerican and kills puppies.

You cultural marxist scamp you ;)


I have never done anything in anyway to de-fraud/abuse the system, seriously never, but I would, maybe, I'm too lazy and apathetic to try, also seems like it would not be worth the effort and the scuzz factor


I was on unemployment during early 2010 when everyone was getting laid off. After about 4 months of diligently applying to everywhere my skills might be fruitfully applied and getting goose egg, I just stopped trying for a while. You're required to apply to 2 places a week to get unemployment, but I didn't for a while and no one ever checked.

I don't feel particularly guilty though.


Now all we've got to do to is get Citizen Meatrace to enjoy The Grateful Dead and he will be ready for membership in the Commonwealth Party of Galt (M-L).


I'm okay with working 8 hour days. I enjoy working, especially since I provide a valuable service to society.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Meatrace wrote:
If, in a vacuum and with appropriate technology, we can sustain our existence with 2-3 hours a day of actual work, why are we killing ourselves and still scraping by? We need to implement a more economically and ecologically sustainable model.
Because the people running the show don't want to be SUSTAINED. YOU need to work for 8 hours a day and get the fruit of 2 hours a day because they want the fruit of the other 6.

It's a time tested societal model; we've been "administering" the fruit of the other six for millennia now. And look, the goblin kennels require no little money for upkeep, and I'm sorry to say I just can't trust the green skins to spend the money properly.


Lord Dice wrote:
It's a time tested societal model; we've been "administering" the fruit of the other six for millennia now. And look, the goblin kennels require no little money for upkeep, and I'm sorry to say I just can't trust the green skins to spend the money properly.

D'you see why I ended up like I did? And why I'm always yelling "Vive le Galt!"?

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Lord Dice wrote:
It's a time tested societal model; we've been "administering" the fruit of the other six for millennia now. And look, the goblin kennels require no little money for upkeep, and I'm sorry to say I just can't trust the green skins to spend the money properly.
D'you see why I ended up like I did? And why I'm always yelling "Vive le Galt!"?

We always assumed that's what was tattooed on the keister of the goblin marching in front of you.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Lord Dice wrote:
It's a time tested societal model; we've been "administering" the fruit of the other six for millennia now. And look, the goblin kennels require no little money for upkeep, and I'm sorry to say I just can't trust the green skins to spend the money properly.
D'you see why I ended up like I did? And why I'm always yelling "Vive le Galt!"?
We always assumed that's what was tattooed on the keister of the goblin marching in front of you.

That would imply Anklebiter can read. I'm pretty sure those are fighting words t oa Goblin.


Not only can goblins read, they can read Gramsci!

Now you're in for it, pinkskins!

351 to 400 of 754 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / "Never Worked a Day in My Life": Urban Myth? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.