Minimum Wage

[FlameBlade]

So, hence...more people willing to slack off than work?

[Cain]

No, the jobs aren't in the inner cities. They're not even /in/ the cities.

Broadly speaking, this is true. At the present moment, the jobs are overseas.

Oh, come on. 100 miles from your job? When did anyone suggest that?

It's an exaggeration, although not much of one-- I knew a few people who did just that. Who was it here who said his dad drove halfway across the state each day for his job?

At any event, the more people there are in an area, the higher the demand is for services, thus the greater the availiability of jobs. If you're out of work, it makes more sense to try and stay in a place with a high concentration of businesses than a place with a low concentration.

AK: Welfare has never paid enough for people to be taken above the poverty line, and only by a very generous accounting can one give it an equivalence to minimum wage. Unemployment is a different matter-- the few times I ended up on it, I got paid roughly 2/3 of my previous wage for the duration. If you were making enough above minimum wage prior to you needing UI, then you'd be making more on it than with minimum.

Marius: You've got a good point. Many of our poor still have shelter and clothing, and we don't seem to have the truly desperate levels of poverty that some countries do. I haven't heard of people dying of starvation. Homelessness is a serious issue, though; there's a tent city that's been set up in Seattle, and many of the residents work.

[Serious Paul]

You know what's really weird? I do believe that you can make more money from welfare or unemployment than you can off 40 hours a week at minimum wage.

But for how long? I mean some people here can attest, I am sure, that unemployment benefits aren't perpetual.

I can't believe that people are actually arguing that it's a good idea not to pay people better money to do shit work.

Now thats an intresting way to look at it. I wonder though, does our definition of shit work vary? For instance is working at a gas/petrol station for minimum wage a shit job? When compared to working at a few of the steel companies I worked at for minimum wage when I first started out-I'd say no. But I guess its a pretty comparative thing.

What confuses me is why your heartland peasants aren't coming out in droves to demand higher wages. I grew up in a poor area. I've seen poor. But damn, our poor ain't got nothing on American poor. Last time I was in LA I saw people living in conditions I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

I know you know LA isn't the heartland right?

Have you been to the "heartland"? The bread basket of America? I spent a lot of my youth in Kansas being poor. I mean really poor. Like so poor other people bought me shoes because they were sick of seeing this gangly 12 year old in the same ripped up pair of converse. So poor we often didn't have enough money to buy groceries and stuff.

Even then we had a TV. We had a car. While I think of my youth as pretty rough, in comparison to what some people in Russia and Africa have for poor-being poor in America isn't so bad.

Even people in LA-I have been through there a few times-live on the average better than most africans. I agree there is more that could be done. I agree its shameful we don't.

[3278]

You know what's really weird? I do believe that you can make more money from welfare or unemployment than you can off 40 hours a week at minimum wage.

You can, yes, depending on where you live and how many federal benefits you choose to abscond with.

Something I keep forgetting to mention is that "minimum wage" is just that. Until recently, even most fast food jobs paid better than minimum wage, and even now, a simple grocery job - no experience required, entry level, no skills necessary - pays US$6 in my area [which is at least fairly average for wages]. Factory starting pay is seldom less than US$10, and usually starts at US$14 and upward. Comparing Danish shrimp-slingers to American burger-flippers isn't accurate enough [for my tastes, anyway]. Nevertheless, European wages on the low end are still higher; I just wanted to point out that "minimum wage" isn't really the low end, unless you're such a loser you're still working in fast-food entry-level jobs when you're an adult.

[Marius]

For serious, I made minimum wage once in my life, and then only for two weeks. I was a dishwasher in a restaraunt, and I was 15, and after two weeks of work I got an automatic raise.

[3278]

Oh, come on. 100 miles from your job? When did anyone suggest that?

It's an exaggeration, although not much of one...

No, it's a lot of one. 10 miles versus 100 miles is a large exaggeration indeed. Even 50 miles is only half of 100. Pretty sizeable exaggeration.

I knew a few people who did just that. Who was it here who said his dad drove halfway across the state each day for his job?

Mine. And that had nothing to do with cost of living, but rather not wanting to move middle-school-age kids out of their schools for an assignment that was only a year or so [my father being a contract mechanical designer, which back then meant travelling from nuclear plant to nuclear plant; now he can stay in one place and use computers to draught bathrooms for schools, and only drives 30 miles to work, which I still consider too long a distance]. So 100 miles isn't a useful measure; it's obviously exceptional.

At any event, the more people there are in an area, the higher the demand is for services, thus the greater the availiability of jobs.

Not only doesn't it work that way, but "an area" doesn't have to be "inner city," or even "in the city," so your point is invalid in any case.

[Johnny the Bull]

What confuses me is why your heartland peasants aren't coming out in droves to demand higher wages. I grew up in a poor area. I've seen poor. But damn, our poor ain't got nothing on American poor. Last time I was in LA I saw people living in conditions I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

I know you know LA isn't the heartland right?

Have you been to the "heartland"? The bread basket of America? I spent a lot of my youth in Kansas being poor. I mean really poor. Like so poor other people bought me shoes because they were sick of seeing this gangly 12 year old in the same ripped up pair of converse. So poor we often didn't have enough money to buy groceries and stuff.

Even then we had a TV. We had a car. While I think of my youth as pretty rough, in comparison to what some people in Russia and Africa have for poor-being poor in America isn't so bad.

Even people in LA-I have been through there a few times-live on the average better than most africans. I agree there is more that could be done. I agree its shameful we don't.

I haven't been to places like North Dakota or Idaho or anything - why would I want to - but I have been to Tennessee and Louisiana. Not the 'heartland' per se, but definately not West or East coast. I saw people that were /poor/. Second world kind of poor, not first world poor. It was disheartening. You just don't get that kind of poverty over here except in Aboriginal communities out in the desert.

As an aside Marius, your peasants are not the best treated in the world. Got to the Netherlands or the like and look at their working poor. All round it is a better standard of living.

[Salvation122]

I haven't been to places like North Dakota or Idaho or anything - why would I want to - but I have been to Tennessee and Louisiana. Not the 'heartland' per se, but definately not West or East coast. I saw people that were /poor/. Second world kind of poor, not first world poor. It was disheartening. You just don't get that kind of poverty over here except in Aboriginal communities out in the desert.

I can't speak for Louisiana, but living in Tennessee, I find it difficult to believe that you found Appalacian dirt farmers without going down an awful lot of side-roads on the way to nothing in-particular.

[Johnny the Bull]

I haven't been to places like North Dakota or Idaho or anything - why would I want to - but I have been to Tennessee and Louisiana. Not the 'heartland' per se, but definately not West or East coast. I saw people that were /poor/. Second world kind of poor, not first world poor. It was disheartening. You just don't get that kind of poverty over here except in Aboriginal communities out in the desert.

I can't speak for Louisiana, but living in Tennessee, I find it difficult to believe that you found Appalacian dirt farmers without going down an awful lot of side-roads on the way to nothing in-particular.

No, I didn't go looking for dirt poor americana out in the sticks. I meant just in the goddamn cities.

[Salvation122]

Which cities, then?

[Marius]

As an aside Marius, your peasants are not the best treated in the world. Got to the Netherlands or the like and look at their working poor. All round it is a better standard of living.

By and large, we don't have any peasants. And of the types of people we do have, I never said they were treated best in the world. That's probably not something I'd ever say (or want to say).

I saw people that were /poor/. Second world kind of poor, not first world poor. It was disheartening. You just don't get that kind of poverty over here except in Aboriginal communities out in the desert.

Seriously, you've got to clarify what you mean by that. What is "second world poor," and how will I know it if I see it? What makes it different from "first world poor"? For that matter, what makes it different from third world poor? What specific deprivation did you see that you'd only find in Aboriginal desert communities? Was there a water shortage? Dirt floors? Odd fauna sunning itself on front porches? Ugly clothes? Poor education? What is it you thought you saw?

[Crazy Elf]

Now thats an intresting way to look at it. I wonder though, does our definition of shit work vary? For instance is working at a gas/petrol station for minimum wage a shit job? When compared to working at a few of the steel companies I worked at for minimum wage when I first started out-I'd say no. But I guess its a pretty comparative thing.

I'd say both are jobs that I would consider crappy, for different reasons. Personally, I'd take the steel company due to the need for heavy lifting. Heavy lifting is grand.

[Johnny the Bull]

Sal: Memphis, TN. I generally stick to the major cities unless there's something that I want to see outside them. Seeing as I was only in Memphis for work and /really/ didn't want to be there (I was sick at the time) I didn't make the effort to see the sights. The people I saw living on the streets or in what I would consider little more than slums going to and from facilities though was disheartening.

New Orleans, LA: Same as Memphis really. I wanted to get back to London ASAP so I only stayed as long as I had to for work. We were doing a data management fitout for a bunch of medical clinics. In some areas... damn.

Lebanon, WI. I went to visit a friend of mine from what would become my Livejournal. Place was depressing, as were living conditions for such a cold state.

I'm not saying each of the cities were shit. Well, Lebanon was but I am sure there were nice parts that I didn't see. I'm just saying there were areas that were dirt poor that, given wealth of your nation, shouldn't be like that. There were people living in conditions I had observed in places like the Czech Republic and Poland. Thats poor. Thats second world poor. No healthcare, no real education. Given the money at your disposal, its bollocks.

EDIT: Appologies to Marius. You mentioned the working class in the US was the richest in history, whereas someone else referred to them as peasants. My bad.

[3278]

I referred to them as peasants when I called them the best-living peasants in the history of the world. My statement, though, was about democracy of possessions, as brought about by the ASM and plastics, among other things. You're correct that the conditions of the working poor in [western] Europe are superior, but you'll notice those people have fewer /things./

When it comes down to it, this is too complicated an issue to say, "These people live better than these people." In Mexico, food is super-cheap! But you only get paid a dollar a day. In Atlanta, anyone can afford a PlayStation! But you won't have enough money to buy Nikes. Comparing the lifestyles of the poor across cultures is very difficult to do accurately, without a deep analysis of their respective cultures.

[ak404]

Wait, 32, I don't understand. Since when do 'things' actually convey whether or not your life is better than another person's?

I mean, I like my toys, and they enrich my life, but I'm extremely selective about the utility factor of my shit, whereas I know some idiot out there is just blowing her paycheck out there on beanie babies and $500 basketball cards.

The things are just distractions, I think. "Here, keep yourself amused," and all that.

[3278]

Wait, 32, I don't understand. Since when do 'things' actually convey whether or not your life is better than another person's?

Always. My life is "better" than that of a nomadic herdsman because I have [access to the results of] the plow. He may very well be happier, healthier, and more spiritually in-tune than I am, but my "standard of living" is higher. My standard of living is better than that of someone in Mexico City because I don't shit in a ditch [like 1.5 million people do there, every morning]. Possessions, and access to technological advantages, have always been the yardstick by which we in the West measure the progress of a civilization. [We judge on other things, as well; literature, music, art, learning; but all those things tend to go hand-in-hand with technology, since they are ultimately the result of surplus: when there's enough food for a civilization to support people who do things other than provide for the survival of the individual, civilization forms.]

This isn't a personal measure. As I say, the nomadic herdsman may be happier than I am. But "my culture" is more "advanced" than "his culture" because my culture has more surplus, and thus additional resources to spend on art, science, industry, and personal electronic devices.

I believe - and I know you don't, necessarily - that the quality of a culture is determined along these lines. Quality of life is a direct effect of technology, at the cultural level; on the personal level, it may cause strife, but usually causes better health, more education, and so on.

The things are just distractions, I think. "Here, keep yourself amused," and all that.

There is another trigger I believe in, the way I believe surplus - which I define as the ability of a culture to produce more than the necessities of survival - is the trigger of civilization. I believe that there is a point - a loosely defined point - at which "surplus" becomes "excess." If surplus is "having more than you need," then excess is "having too much."

The Roman Empire, with its slave economy, produced a situation in which there was so much surplus that very few people were needed to produce necessities, as compared to the number of people doing "surplus" tasks, which is to say, those extraneous to survival. Beyond a certain point, this begins to manifest as a cultural malaise, a lack of connection with survival and its requirements. Doing too little work makes people weak, and over time, it makes whole cultures weak. Then they become top-heavy, with too few "producers" and too many "consumers," and are unable to resist the effects of catastrophic change.

I think the same thing is happening to America. Its decadence in consumption and its massive bureaucracy - "surplus" workers by definition, as they are uninvolved with the basic necessities of survival - are the result of the sort of surplus that almost inevitably brings the downfall of a civilization. Instead of slaves, our economy is driven by industry, by machines and people connected through the American System of Manufacture, constantly producing items which almost never answer a basic survival need. People buy a new television every few years, not because the old one doesn't work - although our products are built to last a short time, just to make sure they have to be replaced in a timely fashion - but because there is a new one. The 20th century quest for novelty is almost entirely due to the American System of Manufacture, which, since it made constant change in products /possible,/ also made them /desireable/ and thus /inevitable./

But they are, ultimately, wastes. If I spend US$100 on an iron, I do not get twice the ironing utility of a US$50 iron, nor does the iron /ever/ answer a basic survival need. Our economic wealth makes possible the ownership of nearly any item of technology at nearly any price, and thus our homes are filled with useless items of variable quality, nearly always in proportion to our incomes. Look around you, and ask yourself how many of the items in the room you're in now do you actually /require/ to stay alive. American peasants* are able to afford more things they don't need than any peasants in history, which means they not only are able to have their own chairs and silverware - unheard of just a few hundred years ago - but also their own televisions, cars, toasters, food processors, and a hundred other things they /don't actually need./

It's bad to think about it, because our entire economic success rests on the notion of these people buying these things they don't need, effectively wasting money just to keep money flowing through the economy. We'd all be individually better off in the short term if we stopped buying shit we don't need, but in the long term, our civilization cannot run at the rate it's attempting to without our massive and unnecessary consumption. The United States has backed itself into a familiar corner, in which the only way to survive is to constantly continue growing. Thus, of course, the extraordinarily debilitating effects of economic downturn, which results in less consumer spending and thus cripples our growth-based economy.

They are distractions, these Nikes and DVD players and baseball cards; however, they're the distractions that make our economy possible in the form we see it [more or less] today. Anything else - no matter how wise that "anything" might be - would be the downfall of civilization as we know it. Not that I consider that a downside, of course.

*I use the term comparatively, meaning the analogues of yesterday's peasants, in today's society.

[Cain]

Ak, Johnny, you're both sorta missing 32's point-- and 32 is kinda meandering, as topics on Bulldrek are wont to do.

Poverty comes in different flavors. There's "relative" poverty, such as we have in the inner city, where people just barely have enough to meet their basic needs. It's characterized by a lack of access to health care, difficulties with clothing, and so on.

And then there's "abject" poverty, as seen in deep Africa. People there are starving to death, they're dying from exposure to the elements, and have to scramble to get clothing.

The amount of "things" we have availiable keep our poorest far away from the "abject" poverty line, and allows for a few luxuries, besides. If you go searching in a dump, you can find lots of stuff to build a shelter out of, cast-away clothing, plus maybe a still-working TV set. In a primitive area, all that stuff would have to be raised, hunted down, then worked into the house/clothing-- and I really doubt anyone can make a TV set from sand and copper. Because they now only have to worry about one survival necessity-- food-- things are much easier for the poorest here.

[Salvation122]

Memphis, TN. I generally stick to the major cities unless there's something that I want to see outside them. Seeing as I was only in Memphis for work and /really/ didn't want to be there (I was sick at the time) I didn't make the effort to see the sights. The people I saw living on the streets or in what I would consider little more than slums going to and from facilities though was disheartening.

So probably down near Orange Mound, Whitehaven, or off Lamar/Danny Thomas/Democrat. You're a braver man than I; being a reasonably well-dressed white guy is quite likely to get you hurt (or dead) and robbed in those areas. Which is, of course, part of the problem.

Memphis does have slums. There's about a two-mile north/south stretch between Midtown and Riverside that's really, really ugly. But even then, you don't see a lot of people living in the streets. Now, in fairness, I only really started getting out that far two or three years ago, so it's possible that things have gotten better since you've been here.

New Orleans, LA: Same as Memphis really. I wanted to get back to London ASAP so I only stayed as long as I had to for work. We were doing a data management fitout for a bunch of medical clinics. In some areas... damn.

Yeah, I saw that too, and we didn't go looking around very much. (Wandering around New Orleans at night with a couple of young, pretty women is a good way for you to get dead and them to get raped, and we were trying to avoid that.) The bottom dropped out of New Orleans with the depression, and it never really came back.

[ak404]

Just a really stupid question, but if I was living on the poverty line and wanted to save up as much money as possible, would it make an incredible amount of sense to move the fuck away from the city, into a rural area, get a hunting lisence and just fish and hunt for food?

[MooCow]

Except that most hunting is by Official Season, even fishing these days I think has Seasons.

Plus, it requires skills and equipment that aren't neccesarily common place these days.

[Johnny the Bull]

Memphis, TN. I generally stick to the major cities unless there's something that I want to see outside them. Seeing as I was only in Memphis for work and /really/ didn't want to be there (I was sick at the time) I didn't make the effort to see the sights. The people I saw living on the streets or in what I would consider little more than slums going to and from facilities though was disheartening.

So probably down near Orange Mound, Whitehaven, or off Lamar/Danny Thomas/Democrat. You're a braver man than I; being a reasonably well-dressed white guy is quite likely to get you hurt (or dead) and robbed in those areas. Which is, of course, part of the problem.

I never felt /threatened/ - maybe because I didn't realise the risk or maybe I went to better areas than that. My life that week was spent being bundled into a car, going to a medical clinic or day surgery, assessing their needs for the fitout then leaving. It wasn't like the middle east or SE asia - things were far better than that - it just felt off.

Memphis does have slums. There's about a two-mile north/south stretch between Midtown and Riverside that's really, really ugly. But even then, you don't see a lot of people living in the streets. Now, in fairness, I only really started getting out that far two or three years ago, so it's possible that things have gotten better since you've been here.

New Orleans, LA: Same as Memphis really. I wanted to get back to London ASAP so I only stayed as long as I had to for work. We were doing a data management fitout for a bunch of medical clinics. In some areas... damn.

Yeah, I saw that too, and we didn't go looking around very much. (Wandering around New Orleans at night with a couple of young, pretty women is a good way for you to get dead and them to get raped, and we were trying to avoid that.) The bottom dropped out of New Orleans with the depression, and it never really came back.

New Orleans was pretty good other than the work. The refit of the Riverside Hilton was something to behold. A lot to be said about Southern hospitality.

[3278]

Just a really stupid question, but if I was living on the poverty line and wanted to save up as much money as possible, would it make an incredible amount of sense to move the fuck away from the city, into a rural area, get a hunting lisence and just fish and hunt for food?

That's possibly the most profound question of the thread, and one that I don't have nearly as much time as I'd like to comment on. Moo touched on a couple of the most significant points, which effectively boil down to the fact that the modern urban peasant knows next to nothing about survival in the direct sense. While they understand how to survive within the support structure technology has given us, like almost everyone here, they simply could not survive without it. I would love to make a thread devoted to just this concept, but I don't forsee it amounting to anything but people fighting about how awesome they are and how they could totally survive no matter what.

For what it's worth, there are a number of people in Grand Rapids who live under the poverty level who do, indeed, fish in order to feed their families. [Hunting is seasonal and more difficult, particularly near cities.] Unfortunately for them, the very technological support structure they're attempting to bypass has filled the fish they're attempting to eat with a rectal thermometer's worth of mercury. ["Would you eat a rectal thermometer?"] And, of course, god knows what else.

Nevertheless, the idea itself - leaving the city and its expensive support structures for near-urban areas where survival through self-sufficiency is possible - is compelling and quite feasible. The necessary steps for doing such a thing are even commonly available in the treatises on animal husbandry and grange operation written by the Cistercian monks, who split off from the Benedictines in 1098 to live "far from the haunts of men." Their instructions to the lay brothers are as valid 900 years later as they were at the time, and the methods they lay out for self-sufficient survival can still be used today with great effectiveness.

Carried out properly, the Cistercian methods would allow not just survival, but in fact a kind of prosperity that the modern urban peasant can only dream of. However, since the methods require hard work, they will remain only dreams to the modern urban peasant.

[3278]

...get a hunting lisence and just fish and hunt for food?

Oh, one more thing: hunting and fishing are not, by themselves, likely to provide enough food for someone, much less their families. The only surefire method* of providing food for yourself and your "community" is farming, which is why I brought up the Cistercians; instead of hunting and fishing, you need to grow crops [which means plows, fertilizer, beasts of burden, yokes, and so on] and domesticated animals [to provide both food and other utilities, such as wool and leather].

Nevertheless, it is very possible, with a very small amount of very marginal land - the Cistercians built their farms in what were effectively the worst places they could find - and what would now be considered a small material investment, to create a self-sustaining lifestyle completely independant on the outside world, and moreover, to create a lifestyle which is not only self-sufficient, but which produces enough surplus to /sell/ to the outside world at what are, today, very high prices.

*Ha-ha! Okay, "a /more/ surefire method."

[ak404]

In other words, large cities are crippling us by offering us far too much shit. Even if you take that herder from your previous example, 32, that poor guy can still survive better in the wilderness than any of us. Because of the 'lower' standard of living, he also demands much less than we do.

[Cain]

Yes, but he also has fewer opportunities to earn cash. Also, setting up the situation so that he can switch over to a survivalist system requires a fair amount of cash to begin with.

Look, in order to raise crops, you need land. That's why, in the medieval era, wealth = land. Peasants were poor because they didn't own land, and feudal lords were {relatively} wealthy because they did. To this day, this is still true to a degree-- homeowners can tap into the equity in their homes for added cash as needed. So, for him to succeed, legally, he's got to have the cash to purchase a decent-sized area of land. If we're discussing hunting or fishing, that's even worse, as hunting generally requires even more land, and fishing requires very specialized areas.

The poor survivalist also requires things to be successful, like shelter, clothing, and so on. Being so far removed, he's going to have fewer opportunities to raise cash fro these items. Since it's doubtful that he'll have the skills to make them, he'll either need to be making some cash, or he'll have to hire a teacher to train him. In either case, he needs to either be making money, or to have a lot of it up front.

In other words, in order to survive as a poor man in the woods, you need a hell of a lot of cash.

[Johnny the Bull]

32, all I am saying is its fucking ridiculous that in the richest nation on earth, people have to do that to survive.

[UncleJoseph]

You know what's funny? When I was in high school, minimum wage was $4.25/hour. I worked at a jewelry store as an engraver. When I started, the WWII-era owners paid me a training wage for 6 months. That was $3.65/hour (the minimum training wage). Then, once I was "trained" in six months, they "graciously" bumped it up to $4.25/hour. In reality, I was fully trained in about 3-4 weeks. But the governemnt allowed them to pay the training wage for up to 6 months. They totally used the whole six month allottment.

Hell, as a cop with 3 years worth of contractual raises (at my current employer), I only make about $20 USD/hour. But I have health (very crappy coverage now), dental, eye, life, pension, disability and other benefits. But it is a union job. It's a decent living, but I'm certainly not upper-middle class. And when you factor in the risks we take on a day to day basis, it doesn't seem like fair compensations. On the other hand, soldiers make way less money...and their jobs are pretty much guaranteed hazardous.

[3278]

Yes, but he also has fewer opportunities to earn cash.

No, he doesn't. He actually has many, many more opportunities to earn cash, and still requires less of it.

Also, setting up the situation so that he can switch over to a survivalist system requires a fair amount of cash to begin with.

Please explain the logic underlying this conclusion. And explain what you mean by "a fair amount."

The poor survivalist also requires things to be successful, like shelter, clothing, and so on.

The peasant /makes/ these things, and they are vastly less expensive than their urban counterparts. Ironically, one of <a href="http://www.loghomebuilders.org/bruceboy.jpg">these guys</a> can make the point better than I can.

Since it's doubtful that he'll have the skills to make them, he'll either need to be making some cash, or he'll have to hire a teacher to train him. In either case, he needs to either be making money, or to have a lot of it up front.

Ah. Well. If you posit that the urban peasant has no survival skills, then the problem isn't that he doesn't know how to make yarn; the problems will begin long before that, when it comes time to grow food, plant food, raise livestock, and so on. This does not, however, equal your next statement:

In other words, in order to survive as a poor man in the woods, you need a hell of a lot of cash.

Absolutely not. In order to survive as a modern urban peasant who has transplanted his or herself to a near-urban area, one needs almost no money at all, but requires a great deal of knowledge, all of which is commonly available, as from the previously mentioned Cistercians.

Cain is making an excellent case-by-example of why the modern urban peasant cannot survive self-sufficiently: because they simply don't know how. We in civilization are at so far a remove from the necessities of basic survival that we believe the only way to learn survival is by "making some cash," or "hir[ing] a teacher." We no longer possess the skills, as modern urban peasants in civilization, to keep ourselves alive without the assistance of others! This is a strange and far-distant result of surplus; how strangely the animals must look at us; for we were once one of them, and capable, on an individual level, of survival. Now we are fat, and weak, and furless.

[lorg]

32, all I am saying is its fucking ridiculous that in the richest nation on earth, people have to do that to survive.

They didn't become rich by having a large and "generous" welfare system.

[3278]

32, all I am saying is its fucking ridiculous that in the richest nation on earth, people have to do that to survive.

It is. I bet you and I might have different notions of where the onus for that lies, however. I think it's ridiculous anyone can live in a nation so rich and be so poor; many people might think it's ridiculous that a nation so rich would allow people to be so poor. Anyway, as Lorg mentioned, we didn't get rich by spreading the wealth, but rather by exploiting the worker. Fortunately, the worker doesn't know any better standard of living, and thus they're as happy as they need to be for the system to work. Today, at least.

[MooCow]

Absolutely not. In order to survive as a modern urban peasant who has transplanted his or herself to a near-urban area, one needs almost no money at all, but requires a great deal of knowledge, all of which is commonly available, as from the previously mentioned Cistercians.

At the risk of sounding like I'm supporting Cain here.....

Where would Joe Bum get this knowledge? It's a good bet that he's never heard of the Cistercians. While it's likely he has access to a library, that's at best a step in the right direction. Knowledge does not equal skill. You can't just read a book, and suddenly be able to farm.

Where would he get the land to farm on? I have no facts, but I would think that pretty much all the land in the US/Canada is owned by somebody (either private, corporate, or government).

Where would he get the tools he needs? Even basic subsistence farming requires tools. While technically he could craft them, I have a feeling that in reality you run into a case similar to that old children's song "There's a hole in the Bucket".

Where would he get the initial seed material for the crops?

This is of course all off topic. Even if it were feasible, and the feasibility I think lies somewhere between you and Cain, you're left with the fact that this isn't really a solution. I seem to recall having seen studies that say that traditional farming methods would not be suitable to support the current population of the US. IE, if we all quit our jobs today, bought some hoes, and headed out into the country we would find that there simply wasn't enough land to support us all using circa 1100 farming methods.

That could be wrong of course. Can anyone support or refute this? The likelihood that I'll ever end up on Welfare is so small I don't really care to put any work into the topic.

[Serious Paul]

Except that most hunting is by Official Season, even fishing these days I think has Seasons.

Plus, it requires skills and equipment that aren't neccesarily common place these days.

In Michigan a lot of people can hunt year around for "need". I'd have to find the exact rules, but I know a guy at work who hunts deer year around, because all he eats is venison.

Most fishing seasons run pretty close to year round, its the few exceptions we generally concentrate on-the sport fish. They have more defined seasons. But as far as I know Carp and Catfish are always in season. (Yum right?)

32, all I am saying is its fucking ridiculous that in the richest nation on earth, people have to do that to survive.

You've been watching too many John Kerry ads haven't you Johnny? Richest nation? How? By what standard?

They didn't become rich by having a large and "generous" welfare system.

I guess compared to your nation we don't have the same sort of system in place. Say, whats the population of Sweden again? And whats their national budget look like again?

Oh yeah.

[MooCow]

In Michigan a lot of people can hunt year around for "need".

Interesting. I would suspect that many states have similar laws then.

[lorg]

They didn't become rich by having a large and "generous" welfare system.

I guess compared to your nation we don't have the same sort of system in place. Say, whats the population of Sweden again? And whats their national budget look like again?

Ours ain't that great any more if that is what you are implying. Better or worse? I think we just choose to spend the money we got differently.

The population is just below 9.000.000 and if you want gdp stats in english you can find them here. Think the usd to sek exchange rate was about 7.52 today at lunch.

[Johnny the Bull]

32, all I am saying is its fucking ridiculous that in the richest nation on earth, people have to do that to survive.

You've been watching too many John Kerry ads haven't you Johnny? Richest nation? How? By what standard?

While this may come as a shock to many, AU is not yet the 51st state of the union. Consequently I don't actually get to see John Kerry ads.

Richest nation... where to begin.

YOU CONSTITUTE 26% PERCENT OF THE ENTIRE WEALTH ON THE PLANET.

My country's budget is roughly 3% of yours yet manages to pay for the health and education of a tenth of the population. What you've spent on the war in Iraq thus far is 4 times our entire federal budget. Out of anyone, you could pay for the entirety of your population with the least amount of impact.

That you don't is a disgrace.

[3278]

Where would Joe Bum get this knowledge?

He wouldn't. Let me be perfectly clear about this: almost no one is capable of making the transition from modern urban peasant to modern rural peasant. In fact, that's at least part of my point. We no longer possess the knowledge, nor do we even know where that knowledge is! Nevertheless, such a transition is very, very possible.

I don't want to downplay the number of skills necessary to do this, and if I've done that, I've failed in part of my goal. I want to convey how very, very difficult this is. As I mentioned earlier, even something as simple as growing wheat requires knowledge almost none of us possess, knowledge of growing seasons, plants, fertilizers, land clearing methods, drainage, irrigation, and so on. What's incredible about this is not that these are complicated concepts; all of this was known 6,000-8,000 years ago, before the first stone buildings were ever erected. What's amazing is that we've /forgotten./

You can't just read a book, and suddenly be able to farm.

I would dispute that. Given any level of intelligence near "average," and the proper Cistercian guides, anyone can accomplish this transition. I know that's true because it's been done by thousands and thousands of people. [See, that's my ace in the hole on this issue: what I'm talking about isn't revolutionary or new; it's been done hundreds of times by thousands of people in the last 8,000 years, mostly without even the aid of writing!]

Where would he get the land to farm on?

He'd have to buy it. That's the up-front capital I know would be required. However, there are a number of ways to accomplish this goal; asking farmers for a few acres of marginal land, in return for some percentage of some crop, works quite well, and is very typical in farming areas. Paul's father-in-law does this, as have Estes' parents. Much state land is considered useless by the state - otherwise, they'd sell it - but the Cistercian methods don't require particularly /good/ land, and in fact, as I mentioned, make use of even the worst land. [Nobles used to give the Cistercians their worst land in order to build an abbey; the Cistercians got their abbey and grange, while the noble got salvation for effectively nothing.] So, like them, you can get the land you require for very little cash, or no cash at all.

Where would he get the tools he needs? Even basic subsistence farming requires tools. While technically he could craft them, I have a feeling that in reality you run into a case similar to that old children's song "There's a hole in the Bucket".

At the most basic level, there really are very few tools needed to accomplish this task, all of which could be purchased for less than US$100 [total] from nearly any hardware or farming supply store. More complicated tools can make life easier, but if you're interested in exchanging "modernity" for "labor," then complex tools are probably a step in the wrong direction.

In any case, almost exclusively what you need is woodworking tools, simple carpenter's tools which have been available since 6,000 B.C. or earlier.

Where would he get the initial seed material for the crops?

Beg, borrow, buy, steal, find. I'm less worried about the crops than I would be about the livestock. Still, these costs are very, very low compared to the costs of life in the city; a year's savings could make you a very, very wealthy subsistance farmer. And the greatest part of all is, unlike cars and PlayStations, sheep make sheep, and wheat makes wheat.

Even if it were feasible, and the feasibility I think lies somewhere between you and Cain, you're left with the fact that this isn't really a solution.

It's not. It /could be,/ but it would require that the modern urban peasant know as much or more about self-sufficient farming as I do, which - and I apologize again if I didn't make this point clearly - he doesn't.

One of the major absolute requirements of the Cistercian system is a waterwheel. I don't think I'm incorrect in assuming that very few people here from the city know how to build a mill or forge using water power. It's not hard, and enough time spent thinking about it will lead to the knowledge you need, but no one is willing or interested in doing that. Look, for instance, at the objections which have been raised so far: none of them cannot be overcome with a few minutes consideration, but we in the city are unprepared for such thoughts.

So if I haven't been clear enough, let me reiterate again: if everyone on this board tried to make the transition from modern urban peasant to modern rural peasant, they would almost certainly fail. Almost no one here has the knowledge, skill, or desire to work that would be required for such a move, and having all three is very rare indeed.

I seem to recall having seen studies that say that traditional farming methods would not be suitable to support the current population of the US.

That's entirely possible. I'm certainly not recommending that everyone leave the city and take up country life. I certainly wouldn't want to do that. I am saying, however, that such a transition is quite possible for a modern urban peasant, provided that he has the knowledge of a rural monk 900 years ago. Which he doesn't!

Even today's modern /rural/ peasant most likely would have incredible difficulty surviving without the support structure to which he has grown accustomed. Without electricity, the milking machines don't work. Without gasoline, the tractors don't work. No lights, no heat, no water. These are all problems which appear to be insoluable, but only because of our ignorance: in truth, they have simple solutions, but the solutions are so simple that we are unaware of them here in civilization, whether urban or rural.

[3278]

That you don't is a disgrace.

And there is the primary difference of opinion. I think it would be a disgrace if we handed money to people who hadn't earned it. It's a different way of thinking. Perhaps you disagree with the system under which we're operating, but it is, beyond doubt, very effective. After all, we are the richest nation in the world.

I get your objection, I really do. It's the same objection raised by many people here in America, and it's possible that someday we'll change to a more forgiving, more supportive system. We move further that direction all the time. I simply don't agree.

[Serious Paul]

Lorg what I meant was it's almost certainly easier to hold Sweden or any single European nation up as a success when compared ot the US-most European nations are the size of a single state here.

I'm not saying we couldn't do better. We surely could.

While this may come as a shock to many, AU is not yet the 51st state of the union. Consequently I don't actually get to see John Kerry ads.

I don't think of AU in that manner at all. To be honest if it wasn't for the occassional reminder it was a country, well I'd never think about it.

You managed to quote John Kerry almost word for word. I thought that was funny.

YOU CONSTITUTE 26% PERCENT OF THE ENTIRE WEALTH ON THE PLANET

But we're still not the richest by a lot of standards. Per Capita, and more we lose out. My point is that there are different standards of judging wealth.

I'd say we have more country (Actual physical space) than most nations, and that combined with our natural resources does make us a rich nation. Much more so than many nations, even the small oil countries that make a higher per capita than us.

We of course squander a lot of our wealth. Any nation our size is bound to. Think about what wespend on our money on. Australia is able to not spend as much on defence because its ally, the United States of America does. Same for Europe.

How long has the game plan been "hold out until the Americans show up."? I'm not asking for pity here, or even saying we couldn't do better. We can. We should strive to do better.

But disgrace?

I just don't agree with there. Sorry.

[lorg]

And there is the primary difference of opinion. I think it would be a disgrace if we handed money to people who hadn't earned it. It's a different way of thinking. Perhaps you disagree with the system under which we're operating, but it is, beyond doubt, very effective. After all, we are the richest nation in the world.

I'm sure there are several other factors here to and not just your wealth distribution system at play.

We for example have free university education if we have the qualifications, free as in no tuition and the government pays you about 2500 SEK a month and you can borrow another 6k at a very favorable rate (compared to a bank loan). I don't see that as giving money away to slackers I see it as an investment by the government in the citizens and the future, I'm sure everyone that got it might not have been a worthy investment but I'm sure it turns out for the best in the end.

[3278]

I'm sure there are several other factors here to and not just your wealth distribution system at play.

Absolutely! We have natural resources coming out of our ears, and so much land we don't know what to do with it all. There are many, many reasons America has a lot of money.

We for example have free university education if we have the qualifications, free as in no tuition and the government pays you about 2500 SEK a month and you can borrow another 6k at a very favorable rate (compared to a bank loan). I don't see that as giving money away to slackers I see it as an investment by the government in the citizens and the future, I'm sure everyone that got it might not have been a worthy investment but I'm sure it turns out for the best in the end.

I believe university education should be provided for free to everyone in the country, just as K-12 education here is. That's quite different, in my mind, from free health care and the welfare state. Some things are an investment, yes, but welfare is not.

[lorg]

I believe university education should be provided for free to everyone in the country, just as K-12 education here is. That's quite different, in my mind, from free health care and the welfare state. Some things are an investment, yes, but welfare is not.

Free health care wouldn't be an investment? healty worker = productive worker, hopefully, or atleast one with one less excuse not to work.

I'm not advocating that people should live well on welfare, far from it but I don't like leaving people behind to rot and die just cause they fall of the track or never managed to get on it for one reason or another.

With a welfare system in place people know they won't be left behind if they fail, which in theory sounds good. So they should be more risk prone, unfortunatly it doesn't appear to work all that well since people settle down. They reach some kind of goal and then they just kling on for dear life there. Without one the same probably holds true to in some fashion, you don't have the same "security" so you have to basically go for broke trying to claw your way up, it it works the payout is great if you fail you fall down.

[Marius]

I believe university education should be provided for free to everyone in the country, just as K-12 education here is.

This is what too much exposure to lead dust does, is give you ideas like that.

[lorg]

I believe university education should be provided for free to everyone in the country, just as K-12 education here is.

This is what too much exposure to lead dust does, is give you ideas like that.

Am I to assume you don't agree? If so what exactly is wrong with it or why don't you like the idea?

[3278]

Free health care wouldn't be an investment?

I believe the benefits of free health care in America would and do outweigh the drawbacks. I'm aware that you don't; likely, very little I say would convince you otherwise. This issue is too complicated, and too interconnected with so many other issues, to expect to change someone's mind. Essentially, the issue boils down to where one believes the responsibility ultimately lies: with the individual, or with the government. That is the issue on which we do not agree, and given the histories of our respective countries, that is no surprise at all.

[Serious Paul]

Free health care wouldn't be an investment? healty worker = productive worker, hopefully, or atleast one with one less excuse not to work.

But no guarentee you'd have to work. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the American Judicial system, but assuming you're vaguely familiar, how would you enforce this?

I'm intrested in your answer-and I mean that. I like the idea of free health care, I really do. I just don't see how it could happen in the current America.

[3278]

I believe university education should be provided for free to everyone in the country, just as K-12 education here is.

This is what too much exposure to lead dust does, is give you ideas like that.

I know, but it's part of this whole system I've got worked out in my head, where there's no welfare, no free health care, no affirmative action, and the best-educated nation on the planet. It's my idealism showing through.

[MooCow]

Am I to assume you don't agree? If so what exactly is wrong with it or why don't you like the idea?

Because not everyone should go to college. If everyone went to college, who would collect our garbage?

[3278]

Ech. Duh, Mexicans.

[Szechuan]

I believe university education should be provided for free to everyone in the country, just as K-12 education here is.

This is what too much exposure to lead dust does, is give you ideas like that.

I know, but it's part of this whole system I've got worked out in my head, where there's no welfare, no free health care, no affirmative action, and the best-educated nation on the planet. It's my idealism showing through.

So what do we do about the inevitable surge of poor children dying in the streets?

[MooCow]

Ech. Duh, Mexicans

Yeah, but then who will do our gardening?

So what do we do about the inevitable surge of poor children dying in the streets?

Build more incinerators.