[quote]Sloth wrote:
CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:
275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent,
and 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.
This is what conservatives have to acknowledge, study, and think up policy for. It can’t be ignored.[/quote]
Exactly right.
And while this is heresy among many conservatives, I think a piece of this is re-examining “free trade”. Over that time period, technology and modernization has coincided with massive globalization in world trade. That’s fine as far as it goes, but by those same means, capital can move across borders almost effortlessly, while labor cannot. As far as playing fields go, that is a problem.
The answer has (sometimes) been, “well, folks that lose their jobs to another country will be the beneficiaries of new training and the ‘new’ jobs that evolve around the ‘new’ economy.” Setting aside a few other issues I have with that, even if true, that now-unemployed worker would have to - you guessed it - take out heaps of debt just to retool his skills for the ‘new’ economy. That is troublesome enough for an 18 year old - how about for a 40 year old with a wife, two kids and a mortgage?
I’m not an outright protectionist, but I am not a free trade absolutist either - I think trade can be beneficial, and should be. But it is not in our national interest to blindly adhere to a concept of “free trade” with any nation that would like to do business with us.
I don’t think “free trade” is the bugbear causing all these problems, but I think it’s one of the sacred cows conservatives should seriously re-examine in the wake of the past several decades.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:
275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent,
and 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.
This is what conservatives have to acknowledge, study, and think up policy for. It can’t be ignored.[/quote]
Exactly right.
And while this is heresy among many conservatives, I think a piece of this is re-examining “free trade”. Over that time period, technology and modernization has coincided with massive globalization in world trade. That’s fine as far as it goes, but by those same means, capital can move across borders almost effortlessly, while labor cannot. As far as playing fields go, that is a problem.
The answer has (sometimes) been, “well, folks that lose their jobs to another country will be the beneficiaries of new training and the ‘new’ jobs that evolve around the ‘new’ economy.” Setting aside a few other issues I have with that, even if true, that now-unemployed worker would have to - you guessed it - take out heaps of debt just to retool his skills for the ‘new’ economy. That is troublesome enough for an 18 year old - how about for a 40 year old with a wife, two kids and a mortgage?
I’m not an outright protectionist, but I am not a free trade absolutist either - I think trade can be beneficial, and should be. But it is not in our national interest to blindly adhere to a concept of “free trade” with any nation that would like to do business with us.
I don’t think “free trade” is the bugbear causing all these problems, but I think it’s one of the sacred cows conservatives should seriously re-examine in the wake of the past several decades.[/quote]
Again you seem to agree with the heart of the OWS movement - allowing the richest people in the country to control everything (and set up conditions where their wealth continues to grow at the expense of everyone else) leads inevitably to undesirable conditions… such as businesses outsourcing as many jobs as possible as to increase their profit margins, leaving the working class to (a)rely on government assistance or (b) go through the risky process of incurring debt for new skills.
I don’t get why it baffles you that I’d say you should be involving yourself in the movement rather than just ciriticising those you disagree with.
That said, I agree that the heart of many of our problems is an overextension of certain philosophies. Free trade is good, to a point. Capitalism is good, to a point. Privitization is good, to a point. Competition is good, to a point. Individualism and self reliance are good, to a point. Even having a rich “investment class” is good, to a point. It’s when any of these ideas reach beyond the point of their usefulness that we need to reign them in.
I don’t get why it baffles you that I’d say you should be involving yourself in the movement rather than just ciriticising those you disagree with.[/quote]
Because I haven’t seen any expression of the OWS that squares with my thinking. Big banks aren’t “evil” - they’re self-interested. That’s ok - they should be. I just want the rules changed so that banks/Wall Street must be independent and more self-reliant, not where they have to “share their wealth.”
And, remember, Wall Street is an accomplice to the crime, but there is a bigger fish. The true driver of the economic meltdown were government initiatives (along with ourselves, of course). but, if we were going after the “perps”, we’d be offering a plea deal to Wall Street - the lesser thug - to deliver up the criminal boss - government crony capitalists.
There’s no fury at Washington DC for the poor state of the economy, despite the obvious facts - and if I stood up on a chair and blamed the wrong-headed “afforable housing” policies that got us into this situation, I’d be pelted with produce.
Further, while there seems to be (modest) attempts to deny the ideology of the OWS crowd, the OWS crowd is pretty much a hard-left, redistributionist bunch. I don’t find much in common with their suggestions (and purported solutions) to their complaints, many of which you might even hear at a Tea Party rally (complaints, that is).
And, one large component of my speech to the OWS crowd remains: go forth and take responsibility for yourself. Perhaps you were lied to, perhaps you have been lied to for a long time - that doesn’t change the fact that these individuals have to take responsibility for themselves. That wouldn’t go over well with the general mood that somebody - namely Wall Street - owes them huge.
As an aside, I will be in NYC in a few weeks for work, and I’m dead serious when I say that I am going to spend part of a Friday wandering through the crowd (if it is still there, I assume it will be).
And, one large component of my speech to the OWS crowd remains: go forth and take responsibility for yourself. Perhaps you were lied to, perhaps you have been lied to for a long time - that doesn’t change the fact that these individuals have to take responsibility for themselves. That wouldn’t go over well with the general mood that somebody - namely Wall Street - owes them huge.[/quote]
It’s no secret that washington is in bed with wall street. So when Wall Street fucked up big, and used the best government money can buy to give themselves lots of taxpayers money, you don’t think something is owed to those taxpayers whose money was esentially stolen from them? Not even a new set of rules to make sure it can’t happen again?
And, again, as to the “take responsibility for yourself” line - ok, so everyone takes lower paying jobs, works more hours, and spends less. Wealth continues to consolidate, since “everyone is doing fine!”. At what point does it become too much? When the 1% have 90% of the wealth in the country? 70%? 50%?
If wealth continues to consolidate (and it will, so long as the 1% have washington in their pocket and have unfettered ability to control conditions to ensure continued consolidation), inevitably we’ll reach a point where no amount of “Just sac up and work harder” will be sufficient for most of the population.
“In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.”
This is why I support the movement: maybe we should do something about this, now, when the 1% has 35% rather than 75%.
And, one large component of my speech to the OWS crowd remains: go forth and take responsibility for yourself. Perhaps you were lied to, perhaps you have been lied to for a long time - that doesn’t change the fact that these individuals have to take responsibility for themselves. That wouldn’t go over well with the general mood that somebody - namely Wall Street - owes them huge.[/quote]
It’s no secret that washington is in bed with wall street. So when Wall Street fucked up big, and used the best government money can buy to give themselves lots of taxpayers money, you don’t think something is owed to those taxpayers whose money was esentially stolen from them? Not even a new set of rules to make sure it can’t happen again?
And, again, as to the “take responsibility for yourself” line - ok, so everyone takes lower paying jobs, works more hours, and spends less. Wealth continues to consolidate, since “everyone is doing fine!”. At what point does it become too much? When the 1% have 90% of the wealth in the country? 70%? 50%?
If wealth continues to consolidate (and it will, so long as the 1% have washington in their pocket and have unfettered ability to control conditions to ensure continued consolidation), inevitably we’ll reach a point where no amount of “Just sac up and work harder” will be sufficient for most of the population.
“In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.”
This is why I support the movement: maybe we should do something about this, now, when the 1% has 35% rather than 75%.[/quote]
If the movement had it’s way Che would be a national hero. This movement discredits the issue. Squatting in the publics’ parks, turning them into urinals while they smoke dope and bang on drums. Often demanding jobs while sporting dreads, facial piercings, and green hair. Good economy or not, many of these people weren’t ever serious competition in an applicant pool.
These are people who are either so stoned, or so misinformed, that they think taxation of the evil 1% (which isn’t necessarily wall street/‘big banksters’, btw) would produce anything more than a gnat’s fart in the wind. Free college educations, free healthcare? Are they completely oblivious to the fact that we can’t possibly maintain our present entitlement obligations? Think inequality is bad, what until their social programs dry up no matter how much they tax this 1%. These folks are lost, and whatever solutions that do come out their crowd from time to time, reeks of hardcore romanticized socialism.
Nobody had to give the OWS this image, they brought it with them.
And, one large component of my speech to the OWS crowd remains: go forth and take responsibility for yourself. Perhaps you were lied to, perhaps you have been lied to for a long time - that doesn’t change the fact that these individuals have to take responsibility for themselves. That wouldn’t go over well with the general mood that somebody - namely Wall Street - owes them huge.[/quote]
It’s no secret that washington is in bed with wall street. So when Wall Street fucked up big, and used the best government money can buy to give themselves lots of taxpayers money, you don’t think something is owed to those taxpayers whose money was esentially stolen from them? Not even a new set of rules to make sure it can’t happen again?
And, again, as to the “take responsibility for yourself” line - ok, so everyone takes lower paying jobs, works more hours, and spends less. Wealth continues to consolidate, since “everyone is doing fine!”. At what point does it become too much? When the 1% have 90% of the wealth in the country? 70%? 50%?
If wealth continues to consolidate (and it will, so long as the 1% have washington in their pocket and have unfettered ability to control conditions to ensure continued consolidation), inevitably we’ll reach a point where no amount of “Just sac up and work harder” will be sufficient for most of the population.
“In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.”
This is why I support the movement: maybe we should do something about this, now, when the 1% has 35% rather than 75%.[/quote]
If the movement had it’s way Che would be a national hero. This movement discredits the issue. Squatting in the publics’ parks, turning them into urinals while they smoke dope and bang on drums. These are people who are either so stoned, or so misinformed, that they think taxation of the evil 1% (which isn’t necessarily wall street/‘big banksters’, btw) would produce anything more than a gnat’s fart in the wind. Free college educations, free healthcare? Are they completely oblivious to the fact that we can’t possibly maintain our present entitlement obligations? Think inequality is bad, what until their social programs dry up no matter how much they tax this 1%. These folks are lost, and whatever solutions that do come out their crowd from time to time, reeks of hardcore romanticized socialism.[/quote]
Hey what’s wrong with smoking dope?!
The squatting and the abysmal health conditions they are creating are the reasons to break this thing up. I got no issue with the protest, they can protest what they want even if they don’t know what they are protesting, but don’t shit on the ground for others to step in and live around, don’t live there, and don’t get violent. I don’t think that is to much to ask. If they want to march peacefully every day, fine with me, but don’t live there, it’s not your property to take or live on.
Adults with responsibilities have better things to do than get high, imo. But even moreso, jobless, broke, agitators have even less excuse to smoke themselves into stupid-ville. Save the money and time, take your piercings out, get a normal hair cut, stay sober, keep looking for a job, petition your representatives with your grievance, go to a protest, go back home, look for a job, stay sober and well-groomed, vote, go to a protest, go home, rinse and repeat.
It’s no secret that washington is in bed with wall street. So when Wall Street fucked up big, and used the best government money can buy to give themselves lots of taxpayers money, you don’t think something is owed to those taxpayers whose money was esentially stolen from them? Not even a new set of rules to make sure it can’t happen again?[/quote]
Well, sure I do, but you have to get the facts right - the “bailout money” was borrowed money, and has mostly been repaid (and is expected to net a $20 billion in profit). So, I don’t like the bailouts, but there is nothing really “owed” w/r/t to that money.
The problem is the impact on the economy of Wall Street and the government’s actions - and, no, there is nothing “owed” by Wall Street that would alleviate the harm to the economy. This is what I have been harping on. There is nothing Wall Street can do - unless what you think Wall Street should do is pony up more money as a basic wealth transfer to people. And no, I don’t think that should happen. it’s bad policy, it’s been bad policy, and it won’t help the economy.
And I am all for changing the rules to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Time to eliminate “too big to fail”.
I do think that extreme wealth inequality poses problems, but I think you are under an assumption that “wealth” is a zero-sum game - that there exists a finite pie, and that if someone has a certain sized “slice”, it means that someone else’s “slice” is determined by that other “slice”. This is simply and factually incorrect.
And because wealth is not a zero-sum game, the way to fix inequality is not to take theorteical pie from those who have bigger slices and give to those who have smaller slices. The best thing to do is grow the pie along with a proper playing field.
And, one large component of my speech to the OWS crowd remains: go forth and take responsibility for yourself. Perhaps you were lied to, perhaps you have been lied to for a long time - that doesn’t change the fact that these individuals have to take responsibility for themselves. That wouldn’t go over well with the general mood that somebody - namely Wall Street - owes them huge.[/quote]
It’s no secret that washington is in bed with wall street. So when Wall Street fucked up big, and used the best government money can buy to give themselves lots of taxpayers money, you don’t think something is owed to those taxpayers whose money was esentially stolen from them? Not even a new set of rules to make sure it can’t happen again?
And, again, as to the “take responsibility for yourself” line - ok, so everyone takes lower paying jobs, works more hours, and spends less. Wealth continues to consolidate, since “everyone is doing fine!”. At what point does it become too much? When the 1% have 90% of the wealth in the country? 70%? 50%?
If wealth continues to consolidate (and it will, so long as the 1% have washington in their pocket and have unfettered ability to control conditions to ensure continued consolidation), inevitably we’ll reach a point where no amount of “Just sac up and work harder” will be sufficient for most of the population.
“In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.”
This is why I support the movement: maybe we should do something about this, now, when the 1% has 35% rather than 75%.[/quote]
They should be protesting in Washington then. Because these guys fucked up were about to be poorer than shit and the government bailed them out twice and they were able to shelter themselves from their debt. They should have been chopped up and sold off in bankruptcy court. People think that would have been a disaster, but it would actually have been fine. Because the debts would be dealt with and the companies that did the evil would be gone, but the business units would still be in tact and under new management. Doing nothing was the right action, the stimulus rewarded these assholes for fucking up. There not the kind of folks to turn down a free wad of cash.
If your wondering why the rich got richer, it’s because of the government, not corrective actions they took for their businesses.
I don’t support these people because they have no message. They don’t know what they want. I haven’t heard one single solution from these people. Only the rich is too rich and greedy, but only certain rich people. They aren’t worried about how rich Obama is though he is a muti-multi millionaire. They aren’t worried at how rich Michael Moore is, or Alec Baldwin…
Not only that but a large portion of the morons protesting pay no taxes, so really how can you want somebody to pay more taxes when you pay zero yourself…It’s fucking hypocritical, period. Lead by example, pay more yourself, then ask others to follow suite. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
Adults with responsibilities have better things to do than get high, imo. But even moreso, jobless, broke, agitators have even less excuse to smoke themselves into stupid-ville. Save the money and time, take your piercings out, get a normal hair cut, stay sober, keep looking for a job, petition your representatives with your grievance, go to a protest, go back home, look for a job, stay sober and well-groomed, vote, go to a protest, go home, continue job search, rinse and repeat.
[/quote]
True, but I have no issue with those who smoke up and are responsible. If you are doing that instead of your duty than your a low life, but if you handle your shit. I see no issue. Most people I know who partake are gainfully employed well, respected folks…Hell, some are damn rich. Actually, I don’t know anybody who enjoys themselves and doesn’t work and support their families…I live in a very unique area. It’s very nice well groomed place, big ass houses, etc.
Adults with responsibilities have better things to do than get high, imo. But even moreso, jobless, broke, agitators have even less excuse to smoke themselves into stupid-ville. Save the money and time, take your piercings out, get a normal hair cut, stay sober, keep looking for a job, petition your representatives with your grievance, go to a protest, go back home, look for a job, stay sober and well-groomed, vote, go to a protest, go home, rinse and repeat.
[/quote]
Depends on the job too, not all jobs require good grooming. You can work on motor cycles, make a dick load of money and look like a hoodlum. Actually, the biggest assholes I meet are well groomed and sober. The long-haired tatooed sort I tend to get along with and usually find them very nice, peaceful and surprisingly conservative. It’s ok to judge by looks to a point, but don’t be a bigot. All kinds of interesting people look all kinds of ways, some are smart well educated, some are dumb ass low-lifes. There is no one look to discern that.
Adults with responsibilities have better things to do than get high, imo. But even moreso, jobless, broke, agitators have even less excuse to smoke themselves into stupid-ville. Save the money and time, take your piercings out, get a normal hair cut, stay sober, keep looking for a job, petition your representatives with your grievance, go to a protest, go back home, look for a job, stay sober and well-groomed, vote, go to a protest, go home, continue job search, rinse and repeat.
[/quote]
True, but I have no issue with those who smoke up and are responsible. If you are doing that instead of your duty than your a low life, but if you handle your shit. I see no issue. Most people I know who partake are gainfully employed well, respected folks…Hell, some are damn rich. Actually, I don’t know anybody who enjoys themselves and doesn’t work and support their families…I live in a very unique area. It’s very nice well groomed place, big ass houses, etc.
[/quote]
Well, whatever your stance might be, someone who is jobless or even just getting by, has no business smoking (pot or cigarettes), drinking, etc. Especially if they’re demanding wealth redistribution. It’s grown up time. Ignoring the legal/career/familial risks just to feel, sound, and act goofy, if you have employment, have health insurance squared away, and have a rainy day fund going…whatever. If your supposedly educated, in debt, jobless, missing safety nets, and squatting in a park…I refer the reader to my previous post.
Greater economic inequalities are bad for society. As they grow (as they have been), the problems get worse. It’s not a matter of jealousy or “hating the rich” as some idiots would like to believe, it’s about a system which is absolutely 100% doomed to failure.[/quote]
Define…‘Economic Inequality’.
Hopefully, it’s not that Bill Gates makes a lot of money because he’s figured out a massive way to benefit society as opposed to the resentful guy who lives in a tent and smokes pot who can’t get a job. That’s not economic inequality. Both of those guys making the same amount of money would be inequality.
[/quote]
Economic inequality is a matter of how the total wealth of a country is distributed among its citizens- i.e. how much the top 1 percent make, top ten percent, etc.
It’s not a matter of individual cases. That’s an insanely myopic approach.[/quote]
I wouldn’t call that ‘Economic Inequality’. That’s ‘Economic Diversity’.
And yes, the ‘Rich get richer and the poor get poorer’. Since when is that news? It’s in the Bible for chris-sakes because its a TRUTH. You can have a winning, conquering, everything-is-on-my-side mentality…or you can hide in a tent, smoke pot and complain. Whatever you choose, you’ll reap your own reward. Sorry, it always comes back to the individual’s CHOICE.[/quote]
I don’t think you’re quite following. I’ll try to explain.
Its not the fact that certain people make more than others, ok? That’s not the problem.
Its not the fact that the top X percent makes more than the bottom X percent, ok? Thats not the problem. Thats “economic diversity”.
Of course, in every society, you’ll have people who make more money, and people who make less money. Thats just natural, and theres nothing wrong with that, in and of itself.
Follow so far?
Ok, now, when “economic diversity” (some make more than others) starts having a problem with “economic inequality” is when TOO MUCH of a countries wealth goes to TOO SMALL a portion of the population.
Get it? Please, say you get it. Please say you see that its not about “This one guy vs that one guy” but a comprehensive look at the country as a whole.
And, yeah, in every country where “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer”, that society collapses. It’s an entirely doomed system - I’m not saying extreme economic inequality is wrong based on some abstract morality, I’m saying it’s functionally, pragmatically wrong.
As to your “mentality”… I dont even want to get into how misguided that philosophy is.[/quote]
Condescending bully-banter aside, I don’t think the USA is on the verge of collapsing due to this issue. Other issues…like debt, maybe. Unbalanced wealth distribution?..I dunno. Please give examples of societies that have collapsed because of their ‘functionally and pragmatically wrong’ ‘extreme economic inequality’. Just curious.
As far as philosophy goes, we are each entitled to and will reap the rewards of own beliefs and choices. If my philosophy seems misguided to you – so be it. That’s A-OK with me.
Greater economic inequalities are bad for society. As they grow (as they have been), the problems get worse. It’s not a matter of jealousy or “hating the rich” as some idiots would like to believe, it’s about a system which is absolutely 100% doomed to failure.[/quote]
Define…‘Economic Inequality’.
Hopefully, it’s not that Bill Gates makes a lot of money because he’s figured out a massive way to benefit society as opposed to the resentful guy who lives in a tent and smokes pot who can’t get a job. That’s not economic inequality. Both of those guys making the same amount of money would be inequality.
[/quote]
Economic inequality is a matter of how the total wealth of a country is distributed among its citizens- i.e. how much the top 1 percent make, top ten percent, etc.
It’s not a matter of individual cases. That’s an insanely myopic approach.[/quote]
I wouldn’t call that ‘Economic Inequality’. That’s ‘Economic Diversity’.
And yes, the ‘Rich get richer and the poor get poorer’. Since when is that news? It’s in the Bible for chris-sakes because its a TRUTH. You can have a winning, conquering, everything-is-on-my-side mentality…or you can hide in a tent, smoke pot and complain. Whatever you choose, you’ll reap your own reward. Sorry, it always comes back to the individual’s CHOICE.[/quote]
I don’t think you’re quite following. I’ll try to explain.
Its not the fact that certain people make more than others, ok? That’s not the problem.
Its not the fact that the top X percent makes more than the bottom X percent, ok? Thats not the problem. Thats “economic diversity”.
Of course, in every society, you’ll have people who make more money, and people who make less money. Thats just natural, and theres nothing wrong with that, in and of itself.
Follow so far?
Ok, now, when “economic diversity” (some make more than others) starts having a problem with “economic inequality” is when TOO MUCH of a countries wealth goes to TOO SMALL a portion of the population.
Get it? Please, say you get it. Please say you see that its not about “This one guy vs that one guy” but a comprehensive look at the country as a whole.
And, yeah, in every country where “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer”, that society collapses. It’s an entirely doomed system - I’m not saying extreme economic inequality is wrong based on some abstract morality, I’m saying it’s functionally, pragmatically wrong.
As to your “mentality”… I dont even want to get into how misguided that philosophy is.[/quote]
Condescending bully-banter aside, I don’t think the USA is on the verge of collapsing due to this issue. Other issues…like debt, maybe. Unbalanced wealth distribution?..I dunno. Please give examples of societies that have collapsed because of their ‘functionally and pragmatically wrong’ ‘extreme economic inequality’. Just curious.
As far as philosophy goes, we are each entitled to and will reap the rewards of own beliefs and choices. If my philosophy seems misguided to you – so be it. That’s A-OK with me.[/quote]
Adults with responsibilities have better things to do than get high, imo. But even moreso, jobless, broke, agitators have even less excuse to smoke themselves into stupid-ville. Save the money and time, take your piercings out, get a normal hair cut, stay sober, keep looking for a job, petition your representatives with your grievance, go to a protest, go back home, look for a job, stay sober and well-groomed, vote, go to a protest, go home, continue job search, rinse and repeat.
[/quote]
True, but I have no issue with those who smoke up and are responsible. If you are doing that instead of your duty than your a low life, but if you handle your shit. I see no issue. Most people I know who partake are gainfully employed well, respected folks…Hell, some are damn rich. Actually, I don’t know anybody who enjoys themselves and doesn’t work and support their families…I live in a very unique area. It’s very nice well groomed place, big ass houses, etc.
[/quote]
Well, whatever your stance might be, someone who is jobless or even just getting by, has no business smoking (pot or cigarettes), drinking, etc. Especially if they’re demanding wealth redistribution. It’s grown up time. Ignoring the legal/career/familial risks just to feel, sound, and act goofy, if you have employment, have health insurance squared away, and have a rainy day fund going…whatever. If your supposedly educated, in debt, jobless, missing safety nets, and squatting in a park…I refer the reader to my previous post.[/quote]
As long they aren’t sponging I don’t give a shit what they do. I do agree they need to find a a way to support themselves. I disagree they need to modify their behaviour to do it. They may need to, but I am not for a mandate.
No, but you’ll have to be willing to shell out the bucks and be pretty damn oppressive to your employees to find out. Unless they’re fucking things up, it’s not worth the hassle to find out. If they are fucking things up, you’d probably want to fire them anyway and the expense of finding out what they do in their free time ain’t worth it.