Welcome to Gaia! ::

I never said I wanted a 6-figure income. I just wanted a job. I applied all over the US, Canada, UK, and Scandinavia. I applied for jobs in my field, teaching jobs, retail jobs, temp jobs, you name it. What you said was

so if there is no excuse, why do you need to know my circumstances? I'm myopic, and I don't run very fast, but I don't have any outstanding physical limitations. I am certainaly mentally capable of holding down a job. (I have one now, in case that point may be in doubt.) Yet I was poor for a long time because I had no income. Once I got an income, it was barely enough to keep from going further into debt, much less attempt getting out of it.

You said: "Anyone who doesn't have a job and is physically/mentally capable of working, CAN get a job. If they do not have a job, or are only working minimum wage, it is because they choose to."

ALL I have said is that this is not true. That there are many other factors, not the least of which is work availability.


The post you were responding do had the following in it:

If I can get any clearer, please feel free to let me know how.


Taxes are calculated so that you are NOT paying more than you can afford to lose. And if you are, you will be refunded if you file your taxes.

And frankly, I would rather pay higher taxes now so that if something happens, God forbide, and I lose my hypothetical job, I can at least have a means to survive until I can find another one.


No pure form of economy works. Capitalism, when in its pure form, does not work. Why? Because the workers die. That's why elements of socialism had to be introduced into the US, UK, and Canadian economies. The workers were dying. Conditions were so awful that children as young as five or six years old were dying from lung cancer because they were working in factories with such poor conditions.

Capitalism in a pure form fails. Socialism in a pure form fails. A healthy combination of the two, however, succeeds to an acceptable degree. The needs of the economy and the needs of the workers are balanced.


Three and a half years. Ages 15 to 18. During which time I experienced the educational system, looking for colleges, and working.


Scholarships even for those who don't get particularly good grades or win contests or are good at sports.
Special funding.
Schools that will pay for the time you spend in a classroom instead of working.

I didn't say kids are raised to believe that colleges don't exist.


And yet I have repeatedly stated that the existence of possibilities doesn't matter much if people don't have access to them. Knowing that they exist is a key part of having access to them. The very fact that I was in 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grades in an American High School (Pennsylvania, about half an hour out of Philly) and did not know that you could get a scholarship without having exceptionally good grades, winning a contest, or being good at sports says something. I looked. I'm not rich. I looked. I asked my guidance councillor.

Now you might say that I obviously didn't look in the right places and you would be correct. Why didn't I look in the right places? Because I didn't know that there WERE right places (or that I was missing them). How was I supposed to look for something when I didn't know it even existed?


Are you admitting that the story of your mother fighting her way out of terrible conditions was a lie?

Cause if not, she's your role model. She's proof for you that it's possible to make it if you try. Therefore, she gives you a reason to try.


Sure, of a kind. But there's a very big difference, in terms of economy and educational opertunities, between a million dollar trust fund baby and a kid growing up in the ghetto.


I do. But I don't know anything about your mother other than the little you've told me. If I had to guess, I'd say that she had some sort of role model or at least exposed to the notion that it was possible for her to succeed. If she didn't in any shape or form, then she's one cool lady. But it takes an incredible character to emerge from having NO support, NO help, NO role models, and NO encouragement whatsoever. That is something I wouldn't expect from everyone, any more than I would expect everyone to be able to compete in the Olympics.


You had a mother to look up to as a role model. A women who, according to you, managed to get herself out of poverty. It doesn't take being a deity to be able to read what you post publically on a message board.


It was implied (by your saying that the only people who do not have good jobs are either choosing not to or do not have the physical/mental ability to hold one). If you are saying that you did not mean to imply this and that you do not, in any way, think that people who are unable to find work or are only able to find work at the minimum wage level are lazy, then I retract my statement.

It is one I hear commonly from capitalists and I admit freely that I may have imagined words in your mouth based on other common arguments I've heard.


Then please, I implore you, learn about the industrial revolution and what capitalism can do when unrestrained.


I heard you complain that your tax money keeps going to people who aren't working and that giving the poor money only gives them an incentive to not try.

What kind of helping hand did you have in mind?


What about the people in the middle? The people who work hard at two or three minimum wage jobs and DON'T expect everyone else's money to take care of them, but who lack the self-confidence or the plain ability to strive for anything more?

The world isn't black and white. Most people aren't in the first category or the second category. Most people are somewhere in the middle, all in varying degrees.


And what do you deem an acceptable "form of effort"?


Just because there's several posts in the Abortion Thread about this right now, how exactly do you define being "responsible"?

For example, I see the person with an MA in Journalism (sorry, first thing in my head because it's been mentioned in this thread) and two kids who CANNOT find work because of location, so she risks everything to move somewhere where she might find a job to be irresponsible. Why? Because with the cost of moving and the risks involved, if she fails to get that job, she is putting the wellbeing of her children at risk. To me, that's irresponsible. Yet to you, that's the responsible thing to do (at least, so I've gathered).

So which one of us is right?


Sorry, but where have I ever suggested "carrying [our problems] forward" as a solution?

I have yet to provide ANY opinion on what I feel a solution would be. It's all been about you, baby.


Not everyone who is poor is poor because "they won't even help themselves." Not everyone who is struggling to pay the bills and cannot afford to spend the time, energy, and money to get an education "won't even help themselves." Not everyone who isn't willing to move to a new location, therebye putting their children at risk, "won't help themselves."

And finally, why should a child be made to suffer just because his/her parents "won't even help themselves"?


"If you didn't want to be a mother, you shouldn't have had sex!"

"If you weren't financially prepared to be a parent, you shouldn't have had kids!"

Sounds awfully familiar.

"You shouldn't have done this" doesn't solve a problem.

Not to mention that you aren't counting the person who might have HAD a good job and done well enough when he/she decided to have kids, but something happened. I give you for an example the IT crash of the '90s. THOUSANDS (maybe even millions) of people were laid off because the IT market simply crashed. My mother was among those people. She went from making well over $50 an hour to nothing. She went from being extremely high in demand to being completely worthless. She had no qualifications that anyone wanted. Thousands of people were in the same situation. Thousands of people went from being extremely successful to barely being able to find work at McDonalds.

"You shouldn't have had kids" doesn't help these people.


Isn't that what you are complaining about? That it isn't necessarily a job requirement?


And how much of that is socialization versus actual biological fact?

I must go find that article about the female scientist who had a sex change...


Neither do I. But I read a specific implication in what you posted. If you say that wasn't your intention, I'll take your word for it.

Re-reading your profile in light of what you've said here, I believe that this, at least, is a point we agree on. Let's shake.


Sometimes, time isn't something people have. When you have bills to pay NOW and kids to feed NOW and other responsibilities to take care of NOW, waiting six months can put you into serious debt that can haunt you for a very long time.

Okay, I'm getting really tired of arguing this topic. Let me just say I respect everyone who's posted in it, even though I don't necessarily agree with everything they've stated. However, I've started classes and don't have the free time to write the replies and keep up with this topic. So this is my conclusion, make it or break it:

One thing I hate about Internet debating and this thing that happens in which you question someone, they cite examples to back up their point, and then you end up arguing the examples rather than the point itself until you've come to an argument that's far past what you originally wanted to say. It happens to all of us, but you pick and pick until your replies are like the ones above this post and no one's really addressing the entire issue at hand.

My views are rather simple, so I'm going to explain them as simply at possible. I understand it can be difficult to find a job. I understand it's not likely someone can get a high paying job instantly, but there are also jobs that require no education that are not difficult to find. I still stand by my statement that there is no excuse to be poor, but what I should've added to the end of that is "for an extended period of time." Common sense dictates that young adults in college and those between jobs/looking for jobs typically aren't going to be in the upper middle class bracket. (Personally I don't think it should take more than six months to find a job, but I'm aware there are extenuating circumstances for various individuals. Like we've all said before, the system isn't perfect, nor will it ever be.) I think how soon you get a job depends largely on your persistence, your profession, and your location, and yes, I believe that is the responsibility of the person applying. The key factor in my ideals is personal responsibility and a strong attitude, which anyone can have no matter their background. It may not be easy, but it's certainly not impossible. And if young woman are allowing themselves to become mothers, they need to be financially prepared. If they want children, they need to be responsible and provide for them, not ask for money from the government. That's like hitting someone else's car on purpose and then asking them to pay for it.

I stand by everything I said. If something appears contradictive, then it is due to misunderstanding, miscommunication, and/or the limited elaboration Internet communication provides. There is little more I can or wish to do, but what I hope everyone understands is that I don't hate people and I do care about them. From personal experience gained though my experiences and my profession, I have learned that no matter how much you help and give to someone who needs it, unless they are willing to make the effort to change their situation, you only perpetuate their cycles. In any given situation there is always gray matter, something I like to always address but is near impossible to online.

Good authors somewhat related to this topic are Andrew Matthews and Joe Vitale. I suggest everyone, agree or disagree, check out their books. I hope that we can part ways peacefully, and please be aware I bear no grudges whatsoever. Peace out~