Mediocre America

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:50 am

The Greatest Generation is passing away by thousands each month. This is the generation that generally embodied values of hard work, self-reliance and love of country, many were products of the great immigration at the turn of the 20th century and all were tempered by the great depression and World War II.

They are rapidly being replaced by the have it all, me too, live for today, I’m entitled generation who are rapidly finding out, at others expense, that it simply doesn’t work that way.

What will follow these generations? Well, if you listen to today’s political rhetoric, if you observe the philosophy many people seem to be embracing these days, I would say America is about to enter the age of mediocrity, a generation that somehow believes it is entitled to it all, that an omnipotent entity called government is responsible for their well being, that wealthy is bad and that averaging out prosperity is a right. In fact, some politicians are seriously talking about a new bill of rights where under we all have a right to a house, to prosperity and the general benefits that used to come with hard work, achievement and success. In other words, we appear to be headed toward rewarding mediocrity and if this philosophy prevails that is exactly what we will get.

If I recall the words correctly, our right is to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If our right to life and liberty are preserved, than many of the ills facing society simply disappear. If our right to pursue happiness is preserved, than each person is free to achieve his or her goals, not by taking from others, but by maximizing their own worth, by their own effort.

We each define happiness in different ways, perhaps it is living in a cave and meditating all day, perhaps it is spending every penny we earn on the good life or perhaps it is success and wealth. They are all fine as long as we are prepared to live with our choices and not at some point blame the other guy for what we now want and don’t have. If I choose not to finish high school, to have a baby without a husband, to father children here and there, to accumulate unnecessary debt, to not pursue new training opportunities, to not take a second job to achieve a specific goal, to live beyond my means, then it is likely that my success in pursuit of happiness will be someone less than others.

Preserving the right to pursue happiness is sharing the wealth, redistributing it is simply saying that regardless of individual effort, or sacrifice we all must share equally. Taken to the extreme, that means that every American family should earn the average of about $50,000 per year regardless of the individual contribution. Is that what America means in the 21st Century?

We can preserve the right to pursue happiness by assuring there are no artificial barriers in terms of discrimination and such, by supporting the ability for every individual to have the education and training to maximize his or her happiness. Beyond that the individual must use those opportunity to the fullest in their quest for self-defined happiness. Today, as in many past societies on the brink we seem more focused on finding a scapegoat for our own failings, I lost the house I couldn’t afford because of those greedy Wall Street types, I don’t have a good job because jobs are going overseas, my retirement income is insufficient no matter I failed to plan and save for the last thirty years, I can’t pay my credit card bill each month because the interest rate is so high.

Incentives are funny things, they usual work, though frequently with unintended consequences. If you place a penalty on success, many will seek less success, if you remove the penalty or even reward mediocrity, then many will be content with mediocrity. If you pay a penalty for earning above some limit, why earn it?

Of course, it is not all that simple, but the idea of pushing things down to the lowest levels and creating rights that do not exist as opposed to lifting to unknown levels is a long term recipe for a mediocre America.

My grandfather had only an eight grade education, yet he operated a business in NYC, wasn’t’ wealthy, but paid cash for everything. My father had a high school education and was among other things a railroad tower man, a ticket agent and a used car salesmen. He couldn’t afford to buy a house until he was sixty. I started after high school as a mail boy and the lowest paid employee in a company of 15,000, but I went to school for nine years at night while raising four children, I started a (very) small side business in addition to working 60 hours on the job so I could assure that each of my children had a good college education. Today I am far from the bottom of the pay scale and I enjoy the fruits of forty seven years of work. Do you see a pattern from generation to generation here? Call me naive, but I thought that was the way America was supposed to work?

I am no one special, there are millions of other Americans like me, we don’t deserve any medals or accolades. However, I do want an America that offers the same opportunities for my children and grandchildren, an American that offers rewards, not penalties for hard work, an America that encourages achievement that ultimately benefits all, not an America that assumes success (wealth if you will) is handed out to certain people the morning they roll out of bed after graduating from high school and thus must be shared by all.

Government is an entity that binds us into a country, with a purpose of helping society provide for common needs such as security, to assure a fair playing field, to manage those services best provided on a collective basis and to some extent protect us from those among us who feel compelled to not play by the rules in their pursuit of happiness. However, a government that attempts to redistribute the fruits of individual success, that plays one group of citizens against the other, which promises to some what society cannot afford, is a government that overseas a country mired in mediocrity with a dulled human spirit.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 9:32 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1039294 wrote: The Greatest Generation is passing away by thousands each month. This is the generation that generally embodied values of hard work, self-reliance and love of country, many were products of the great immigration at the turn of the 20th century and all were tempered by the great depression and World War II.

They are rapidly being replaced by the have it all, me too, live for today, I’m entitled generation who are rapidly finding out, at others expense, that it simply doesn’t work that way.

What will follow these generations? Well, if you listen to today’s political rhetoric, if you observe the philosophy many people seem to be embracing these days, I would say America is about to enter the age of mediocrity, a generation that somehow believes it is entitled to it all, that an omnipotent entity called government is responsible for their well being, that wealthy is bad and that averaging out prosperity is a right. In fact, some politicians are seriously talking about a new bill of rights where under we all have a right to a house, to prosperity and the general benefits that used to come with hard work, achievement and success. In other words, we appear to be headed toward rewarding mediocrity and if this philosophy prevails that is exactly what we will get.

If I recall the words correctly, our right is to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If our right to life and liberty are preserved, than many of the ills facing society simply disappear. If our right to pursue happiness is preserved, than each person is free to achieve his or her goals, not by taking from others, but by maximizing their own worth, by their own effort.

We each define happiness in different ways, perhaps it is living in a cave and meditating all day, perhaps it is spending every penny we earn on the good life or perhaps it is success and wealth. They are all fine as long as we are prepared to live with our choices and not at some point blame the other guy for what we now want and don’t have. If I choose not to finish high school, to have a baby without a husband, to father children here and there, to accumulate unnecessary debt, to not pursue new training opportunities, to not take a second job to achieve a specific goal, to live beyond my means, then it is likely that my success in pursuit of happiness will be someone less than others.

Preserving the right to pursue happiness is sharing the wealth, redistributing it is simply saying that regardless of individual effort, or sacrifice we all must share equally. Taken to the extreme, that means that every American family should earn the average of about $50,000 per year regardless of the individual contribution. Is that what America means in the 21st Century?

We can preserve the right to pursue happiness by assuring there are no artificial barriers in terms of discrimination and such, by supporting the ability for every individual to have the education and training to maximize his or her happiness. Beyond that the individual must use those opportunity to the fullest in their quest for self-defined happiness. Today, as in many past societies on the brink we seem more focused on finding a scapegoat for our own failings, I lost the house I couldn’t afford because of those greedy Wall Street types, I don’t have a good job because jobs are going overseas, my retirement income is insufficient no matter I failed to plan and save for the last thirty years, I can’t pay my credit card bill each month because the interest rate is so high.

Incentives are funny things, they usual work, though frequently with unintended consequences. If you place a penalty on success, many will seek less success, if you remove the penalty or even reward mediocrity, then many will be content with mediocrity. If you pay a penalty for earning above some limit, why earn it?

Of course, it is not all that simple, but the idea of pushing things down to the lowest levels and creating rights that do not exist as opposed to lifting to unknown levels is a long term recipe for a mediocre America.

My grandfather had only an eight grade education, yet he operated a business in NYC, wasn’t’ wealthy, but paid cash for everything. My father had a high school education and was among other things a railroad tower man, a ticket agent and a used car salesmen. He couldn’t afford to buy a house until he was sixty. I started after high school as a mail boy and the lowest paid employee in a company of 15,000, but I went to school for nine years at night while raising four children, I started a (very) small side business in addition to working 60 hours on the job so I could assure that each of my children had a good college education. Today I am far from the bottom of the pay scale and I enjoy the fruits of forty seven years of work. Do you see a pattern from generation to generation here? Call me naive, but I thought that was the way America was supposed to work?

I am no one special, there are millions of other Americans like me, we don’t deserve any medals or accolades. However, I do want an America that offers the same opportunities for my children and grandchildren, an American that offers rewards, not penalties for hard work, an America that encourages achievement that ultimately benefits all, not an America that assumes success (wealth if you will) is handed out to certain people the morning they roll out of bed after graduating from high school and thus must be shared by all.

Government is an entity that binds us into a country, with a purpose of helping society provide for common needs such as security, to assure a fair playing field, to manage those services best provided on a collective basis and to some extent protect us from those among us who feel compelled to not play by the rules in their pursuit of happiness. However, a government that attempts to redistribute the fruits of individual success, that plays one group of citizens against the other, which promises to some what society cannot afford, is a government that overseas a country mired in mediocrity with a dulled human spirit.

Blame the parents.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:14 am

gmc;1039531 wrote: Blame the parents.

I share your thoughts on this subject Quinn, however those millions of us that feel that way will not be around much longer and there will be a whole new ballgame. Pity.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:27 pm

Lon;1039681 wrote: I share your thoughts on this subject Quinn, however those millions of us that feel that way will not be around much longer and there will be a whole new ballgame. Pity.

Well not exactly a new ballgame, today it's called Europe. Just as China and India are coming into their own with rapidly growing economies the US appears on the brink of falling backward into complacency and a disdain for economic growth and a penchant for equality over achievement.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:52 pm

The shame is that most of us - maybe even the vast majority - live within our means and play the American Dream game within the rules, but so many are convinced that we're in the minority. I can imagine a day when the average Joe will look around and wonder what he's working so hard for when relax and live well enough off the government without even trying.

Then we'll see a real collapse.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:45 pm

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1039294 wrote: The Greatest Generation is passing away by thousands each month. This is the generation that generally embodied values of hard work, self-reliance and love of country, many were products of the great immigration at the turn of the 20th century and all were tempered by the great depression and World War II.

They are rapidly being replaced by the have it all, me too, live for today, I’m entitled generation who are rapidly finding out, at others expense, that it simply doesn’t work that way.

What will follow these generations? Well, if you listen to today’s political rhetoric, if you observe the philosophy many people seem to be embracing these days, I would say America is about to enter the age of mediocrity, a generation that somehow believes it is entitled to it all, that an omnipotent entity called government is responsible for their well being, that wealthy is bad and that averaging out prosperity is a right. In fact, some politicians are seriously talking about a new bill of rights where under we all have a right to a house, to prosperity and the general benefits that used to come with hard work, achievement and success. In other words, we appear to be headed toward rewarding mediocrity and if this philosophy prevails that is exactly what we will get.

If I recall the words correctly, our right is to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If our right to life and liberty are preserved, than many of the ills facing society simply disappear. If our right to pursue happiness is preserved, than each person is free to achieve his or her goals, not by taking from others, but by maximizing their own worth, by their own effort.

We each define happiness in different ways, perhaps it is living in a cave and meditating all day, perhaps it is spending every penny we earn on the good life or perhaps it is success and wealth. They are all fine as long as we are prepared to live with our choices and not at some point blame the other guy for what we now want and don’t have. If I choose not to finish high school, to have a baby without a husband, to father children here and there, to accumulate unnecessary debt, to not pursue new training opportunities, to not take a second job to achieve a specific goal, to live beyond my means, then it is likely that my success in pursuit of happiness will be someone less than others.

Preserving the right to pursue happiness is sharing the wealth, redistributing it is simply saying that regardless of individual effort, or sacrifice we all must share equally. Taken to the extreme, that means that every American family should earn the average of about $50,000 per year regardless of the individual contribution. Is that what America means in the 21st Century?

We can preserve the right to pursue happiness by assuring there are no artificial barriers in terms of discrimination and such, by supporting the ability for every individual to have the education and training to maximize his or her happiness. Beyond that the individual must use those opportunity to the fullest in their quest for self-defined happiness. Today, as in many past societies on the brink we seem more focused on finding a scapegoat for our own failings, I lost the house I couldn’t afford because of those greedy Wall Street types, I don’t have a good job because jobs are going overseas, my retirement income is insufficient no matter I failed to plan and save for the last thirty years, I can’t pay my credit card bill each month because the interest rate is so high.

Incentives are funny things, they usual work, though frequently with unintended consequences. If you place a penalty on success, many will seek less success, if you remove the penalty or even reward mediocrity, then many will be content with mediocrity. If you pay a penalty for earning above some limit, why earn it?

Of course, it is not all that simple, but the idea of pushing things down to the lowest levels and creating rights that do not exist as opposed to lifting to unknown levels is a long term recipe for a mediocre America.

My grandfather had only an eight grade education, yet he operated a business in NYC, wasn’t’ wealthy, but paid cash for everything. My father had a high school education and was among other things a railroad tower man, a ticket agent and a used car salesmen. He couldn’t afford to buy a house until he was sixty. I started after high school as a mail boy and the lowest paid employee in a company of 15,000, but I went to school for nine years at night while raising four children, I started a (very) small side business in addition to working 60 hours on the job so I could assure that each of my children had a good college education. Today I am far from the bottom of the pay scale and I enjoy the fruits of forty seven years of work. Do you see a pattern from generation to generation here? Call me naive, but I thought that was the way America was supposed to work?

I am no one special, there are millions of other Americans like me, we don’t deserve any medals or accolades. However, I do want an America that offers the same opportunities for my children and grandchildren, an American that offers rewards, not penalties for hard work, an America that encourages achievement that ultimately benefits all, not an America that assumes success (wealth if you will) is handed out to certain people the morning they roll out of bed after graduating from high school and thus must be shared by all.

Government is an entity that binds us into a country, with a purpose of helping society provide for common needs such as security, to assure a fair playing field, to manage those services best provided on a collective basis and to some extent protect us from those among us who feel compelled to not play by the rules in their pursuit of happiness. However, a government that attempts to redistribute the fruits of individual success, that plays one group of citizens against the other, which promises to some what society cannot afford, is a government that overseas a country mired in mediocrity with a dulled human spirit.

Yes I do. The generation that comes after you does not have the same resources that were available to you. And the generation after that is getting even less. The "Greatest Generation" had the greatest resources. Btw, their parents did not do as well overall as they went through the depression years. By the time things straightened out the benefits of reorganization went to their offspring. Also the "Greatest Generation" lived in a time of redistributed wealth. They had unions and worker rights. The wealth was not hogged by the top tier. It was socialist. That is where we are headed now. You dont like that because you are in the top tier. Well its time to share.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:58 pm

wildhorses;1040344 wrote: Yes I do. The generation that comes after you does not have the same resources that were available to you. And the generation after that is getting even less. The "Greatest Generation" had the greatest resources. Btw, their parents did not do as well overall as they went through the depression years. By the time things straightened out the benefits of reorganization went to their offspring. Also the "Greatest Generation" lived in a time of redistributed wealth. They had unions and worker rights. The wealth was not hogged by the top tier. It was socialist. That is where we are headed now. You dont like that because you are in the top tier. Well its time to share.

What resources were available to Quinn and my generation that has not been available to the following generation. I am not arguing, just wondering what resources you are referring to. BTW I am ex San Franciscan

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 9:21 pm

Lon;1040350 wrote: What resources were available to Quinn and my generation that has not been available to the following generation. I am not arguing, just wondering what resources you are referring to. BTW I am ex San Franciscan

You were from San Francisco? Hey ex neighbor!!! What part of San Francisco? I am Nob Hill.

OK to the topic. The "Greatest Generation" had job security. There were laws to protect workers. You could not fire someone "just because". There was not "at will employment". Wages were not depressed. Most workers belonged to unions and had health insurance supplied by their employer. Banks were not allowed to engage in usury when it came to loans for homes. Veterans got GI loans at 3%. THREE PERCENT!!!!!!!! Gas did not cost an arm and a leg. There was some disposable income left at the end of the month.

Goods were manufactured in USA...which gave Americans jobs. Also those goods were made to last so you did not have to keep re-buying them over and over. If you bought a set of pots and pans they last years if not decades. Now the handles fall off after a year. Clothes, cars, furniture...same thing.

Employees got sick pay and vacation pay. One person in the household could work and support the entire family. Now with depressed wages both must work and sometimes more than one job.

I spoke at length with my Mom about this...before she died. She was from the "Greatest Generation". She ran down to me the differences between now and then. She told me that if my Dad and she were taken out of that era and put into another....they could have never even bought a house...never could have saved money. They both would have had to work all the time. They would have done just exactly what the next generation had to do.

She was particulary appalled at the corruption in the financial system.

Also they had health insurance supplied by the employer that was actually health insurance. No deductibles. If you had health insurance you were covered. If you had homeowners insurance...you were covered. There was no "cherry picking" the risk by insurance companies.

All of these things added up to a more stable life....more stable employment....more stable safety net for jobs and health care. More stable housing.

Jobs were all done here, not overseas. Products were made here, not in China. And I quote my dear Mother "The only people who didn't have a job, were people who did not want a job". And another quote from her "If we were the greatest generation, its because we had the greatest resources".

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:21 pm

wildhorses;1040356 wrote: You were from San Francisco? Hey ex neighbor!!! What part of San Francisco? I am Nob Hill.

OK to the topic. The "Greatest Generation" had job security. There were laws to protect workers. You could not fire someone "just because". There was not "at will employment". Wages were not depressed. Most workers belonged to unions and had health insurance supplied by their employer. Banks were not allowed to engage in usury when it came to loans for homes. Veterans got GI loans at 3%. THREE PERCENT!!!!!!!! Gas did not cost an arm and a leg. There was some disposable income left at the end of the month.

Goods were manufactured in USA...which gave Americans jobs. Also those goods were made to last so you did not have to keep re-buying them over and over. If you bought a set of pots and pans they last years if not decades. Now the handles fall off after a year. Clothes, cars, furniture...same thing.

Employees got sick pay and vacation pay. One person in the household could work and support the entire family. Now with depressed wages both must work and sometimes more than one job.

I spoke at length with my Mom about this...before she died. She was from the "Greatest Generation". She ran down to me the differences between now and then. She told me that if my Dad and she were taken out of that era and put into another....they could have never even bought a house...never could have saved money. They both would have had to work all the time. They would have done just exactly what the next generation had to do.

She was particulary appalled at the corruption in the financial system.

Also they had health insurance supplied by the employer that was actually health insurance. No deductibles. If you had health insurance you were covered. If you had homeowners insurance...you were covered. There was no "cherry picking" the risk by insurance companies.

All of these things added up to a more stable life....more stable employment....more stable safety net for jobs and health care. More stable housing.

Jobs were all done here, not overseas. Products were made here, not in China. And I quote my dear Mother "The only people who didn't have a job, were people who did not want a job". And another quote from her "If we were the greatest generation, its because we had the greatest resources".
Wow......where did all this go?

I pay $31.00 a MONTH for my health insurance (my company pays the OTHER $433.00)

I am 53 years old and my first house interest rate was 9.4% in 1977 (remember those Carter years?) I now have a rate of 6.1%

About those unions, I know you don't like it but those are "states rights" laws.

I live in a "right to work state" (as is California) and have no problem with it. Being a electrician I have worked with union journeymen and non-union journeymen all over the US and if I had my pick I would take a non-union worker 9 times out of ten?

You might ask why, well it is simple the union man works with the very same thought you mention, that they can't be fired. That is all I think I really need to say on that one.

Post by **spot** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:37 pm

You're completely wrong Quinn. No generation which was adult at the time of the Great Depression is still alive. Individuals might be but that generation's long dead. You're talking about centenarians if you can produce someone who qualifies. The products of the great immigration at the turn of the 20th century who were tempered by the great depression and World War II are in their grave.

What followed those laudable people were the ones who decided to militarise the US, to demand control of the internal policies of their neighbour nations and to kill those who stood up to them. Thank Christ they're finally dying in their turn.

What follows can only be an improvement.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:41 pm

spot;1040394 wrote: You're completely wrong Quinn. No generation which was adult at the time of the Great Depression is still alive. Individuals might be but that generation's long dead. You're talking about centenarians if you can produce someone who qualifies. The products of the great immigration at the turn of the 20th century who were tempered by the great depression and World War II are in their grave.

What followed those laudable people were the ones who decided to militarise the US, to demand control of the internal policies of their neighbour nations and to kill those who stood up to them. Thank Christ they're finally dying in their turn.

What follows can only be an improvement.
Bullocks

Post by **spot** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:42 pm

BTS;1040397 wrote: Bullocks

Name one.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:44 pm

BTS;1040393 wrote: Wow......where did all this go?

I pay $31.00 a MONTH for my health insurance (my company pays the OTHER $433.00)

I am 53 years old and my first house interest rate was 9.4% in 1977 (remember those Carter years?) I now have a rate of 6.1%

About those unions, I know you don't like it but those are "states rights" laws.

I live in a "right to work state" (as is California) and have no problem with it. Being a electrician I have worked with union journeymen and non-union journeymen all over the US and if I had my pick I would take a non-union worker 9 times out of ten?

You might ask why, well it is simple the union man works with the very same thought you mention, that they can't be fired. That is all I think I really need to say on that one.

My parents bought their second home in 1977....their interest rate was 6.7. So I think you are mistaken...or you were an extremely high risk. California is an "at will" state.....right to work....lol....thats funny. And you know what? I know you are not a union worker...you are one of the bosses. Union workers never prefer non union. Never. Only the bosses prefer non union....guess why? Don't give me that bs about how union workers are not hard workers. My father was a union worker....and he just happened to be an electrician. You are one of those bs bosses that dont want to see the tide change in favor of the workers. But like it or not it is coming...get ready. And oh yes....I know the bosses always get paid for health care...the workers dont anymore. The mere fact that you are getting paid for health insurance tells me who you are.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:37 am

wildhorses;1040400 wrote: My parents bought their second home in 1977....their interest rate was 6.7. So I think you are mistaken...or you were an extremely high risk. California is an "at will" state.....right to work....lol....thats funny. And you know what? I know you are not a union worker...you are one of the bosses. Union workers never prefer non union. Never. Only the bosses prefer non union....guess why? Don't give me that bs about how union workers are not hard workers. My father was a union worker....and he just happened to be an electrician. You are one of those bs bosses that dont want to see the tide change in favor of the workers. But like it or not it is coming...get ready. And oh yes....I know the bosses always get paid for health care...the workers dont anymore. The mere fact that you are getting paid for health insurance tells me who you are.Careful with that broad brush, WH.

I've never liked unions and I've been both boss and worker. I joined a union (first time in my life) in my current job as a high school teacher because special ed teachers tend to get sued more than average, and I look at their legal help as an insurance policy. But it's a bitter pill to swallow, seeing all the destructive self-serving practices they engage in with my dues dollar.

Unions served a good and valid purpose, but just like most good things people get addicted and just can't stop, long after the good is done.

Unions: the chocolate of the masses.

Unions did great things and changed society, but now they only serve to kill their golden goose and encourage mediocrity.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:03 am

Accountable;1040490 wrote: Careful with that broad brush, WH.

I've never liked unions and I've been both boss and worker. I joined a union (first time in my life) in my current job as a high school teacher because special ed teachers tend to get sued more than average, and I look at their legal help as an insurance policy. But it's a bitter pill to swallow, seeing all the destructive self-serving practices they engage in with my dues dollar.

Unions served a good and valid purpose, but just like most good things people get addicted and just can't stop, long after the good is done.

Unions: the chocolate of the masses.

Unions did great things and changed society, but now they only serve to kill their golden goose and encourage mediocrity.

Only bosses are against unions...workers never are. Workers have everything to gain and nothing to lose by being in a union. Bosses have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Its as simple as that. And unions do not encourage mediocrity. They protect the worker against being worked like slaves. The boss then has to treat them like human beings. Productivity per worker is slightly less because the workers are respected. Bosses would rather squeeze every drop of blood out of them even if he/she runs them into the ground. Never mind, they just toss out the old ones and get new ones and treat them as slaves too....till they run them into the ground. All in the name of the bottom line. Workers should not be brutalized in this fashion just to make a living. What you call mediocrity, is actually people working at a human pace and under humane conditions.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:37 pm

wildhorses;1040520 wrote: Only bosses are against unions...workers never are. :yh_youkid I'm sorry. Obviously I wasn't clear enough that I'm against unions when I said I've never liked unions, so I'll try again.

I am a worker. I am against unions. Therefore, your statement can not be true.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:09 pm

Accountable;1041155 wrote: :yh_youkid I'm sorry. Obviously I wasn't clear enough that I'm against unions when I said I've never liked unions, so I'll try again.

I am a worker. I am against unions. Therefore, your statement can not be true.

Yes I know what you said. You are one person. If in fact you are a worker and not a boss then you are a rarity. You didnt say what exactly you did not like about your union. Have you considered what your wages would be if your union did not exist? If you are a worker and not in favor of unions this does not mean my statement is not true. 99.99999999% of workers are in favor of unions. 99.999999999% of bosses are not. How's that? Is that accurate enough for you?

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:24 pm

Scrat;1041190 wrote: I think unions are going to make a comeback, things are getting ridiculous. It's very true that the "greatest generation" had the power of unions behind them, that all changed with Reagan and since then America has slowly slid towards the third world.

Some unions, such as teachers unions do need to change though.

Yes the worker has sufferred such a decline that unions will be back in power soon. The greatest generation had other resources besides unions. They had fairer loan practices for one. And americans did their own manufacturing so America was strong....so they had stability.

You are right. It all started with Reagan. It was the Air Traffic Controller's strike. They replaced the workers with cheap labor and let the union workers go. Unions went down after that. Prior to that it was illegal to fire a striking worker. Bosses were forced to negotiate a fair deal with workers. When that law changed it undermined workers and workers rights. Since then its been downhill all the way.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:32 pm

wildhorses;1041301 wrote: Yes I know what you said. You are one person. If in fact you are a worker and not a boss then you are a rarity. You didnt say what exactly you did not like about your union. Have you considered what your wages would be if your union did not exist? If you are a worker and not in favor of unions this does not mean my statement is not true. 99.99999999% of workers are in favor of unions. 99.999999999% of bosses are not. How's that? Is that accurate enough for you?
:wah: Alright, I give. I know I'm the exception to the rule, probably because this is a second career and I have a different point of view.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:35 pm

wildhorses;1041310 wrote: Yes the worker has sufferred such a decline that unions will be back in power soon. The greatest generation had other resources besides unions. They had fairer loan practices for one. And americans did their own manufacturing so America was strong....so they had stability.

You are right. It all started with Reagan. It was the Air Traffic Controller's strike. They replaced the workers with cheap labor and let the union workers go. Unions went down after that. Prior to that it was illegal to fire a striking worker. Bosses were forced to negotiate a fair deal with workers. When that law changed it undermined workers and workers rights. Since then its been downhill all the way.
What about how union affects our auto industry?

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:49 pm

Accountable;1041324 wrote: What about how union affects our auto industry?

Unions do not affect our auto industry in any negative fashion. The auto industry has always been unionized and it worked just fine. We should be heavily taxing foreign cars sold in the country. And the CEO does not have to have an entire collection of mansions. The auto industry is top heavy just like all the other corporations. Corporations were unionized for many years and everything was just fine. Now most of a car is made outside the country and shipped in. This should be stopped. If a auto company starts to go under we should not bail them out. Let them go under. Another car company will spring up to take their place. Or another existing car company will expand to absorb the business. Like GM. Let them go under.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:07 pm

Scrat;1041342 wrote: Aren't the UAW practicing the American way? Isn't getting what they want the means of attaining liberty and persuant to happiness?

If you're advocating a less demanding and more understanding approach from the workers then you're beginning to sound like a socialist AC. I know what UAW workers think, they couldn't care less about the company, just like the execs that run it. It's all about the money, getting as much of it as fast as you can.

It's the American way. Besides, they can go work for Toyota or Honda if their current employer goes belly up. I'm sure the management can find another job also.

Well they care about the company as long as the company employs them. A company is an inanimate object and there is no reason to care about it. It is a source of income for all involved. How can it be anything else?

Of course workers would rather stay at the same company where they already know everyone...but this is only for so long as the company can give them a real job.

And there is no reason for the workers to be less demanding....or take less than they can get. If they do that then they are just giving up the working days of their lives for less than they could get. Why should they? They work hard and they make the company rich.....lets face it....the car company cant make cars without employees on the assembly line. They work hard long hours and should get paid damn good. They should get benefits and have job security.

And ya...they can go to another car company too....if the one they are at does not measure up.

Power to the unions.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 7:12 am

I think to castigate this generation wholescale is a bit harsh, sure they are self-absorbed and self-involved and not very well educated a lot of the time, but then its really more of a case that they haven't been tested as opposed to being medicore, as its more how you respond to events than the events themselves that define you.

I think that many young Americans are undoubtedly committed, intelligent, concerned, hard-working human beings and that hopefully these will be the people that will guide the country back on a path to be being the world's greatest immigrant democracy (a term Simon Schama is using that I really like), and away from this self-obsessed, unilateral, shrill, reactionary, narrow fundamentalist christian America that Bush has presided over.

I personally don't think that America's best days are behind it, far from it, but certainly a new start needs to made, and more than anything, this big fat reality check needs to be absorbed and dealt with if the country is to recover its confidence and strength. Denial and self-delusion will only make it worse.

As for us in Europe, we may be alright, but then again we may not be, we are also in a lot of trouble, oh dear.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 7:29 am

I imagine as each generation fades into darkness they think the country will go to hell without them.

I hate to break it to you Quinn but the country will survive without you.

You arent the greatest thing since sliced bread, your generation had some sucess and some failures. The same can be said about those before you and it will be true of those that come after you.

The world will move, it will evolve and some things will stand the test of time, others will be put to rest.

By the way its your generation that introduced welfare and you can take credit for the atomic bomb as well.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:26 am

wildhorses;1041349 wrote: Well they care about the company as long as the company employs them. I'm way out of my depth here because it's not foremost on my radar, but isnt' (or wasn't) GM paying their union employees to sit on their arses, because layoffs would be in violation of the union contracts? They don't care about the company, they only care about being employed. Check that. They only care about getting a paycheck, the employment part seems to be an irritating sidenote.

Look, unions are good as long as they are realistic about their demands. The problem with them is the same problem with politicians. Once they've done what they need to do, they start "finding" things to "improve". That's where the damage is done. Doing away with unions would be wrong and bad for America - as wrong as allowing them to kill the cash cow they parasitize.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 12:01 pm

wildhorses;1040344 wrote: Yes I do. The generation that comes after you does not have the same resources that were available to you. And the generation after that is getting even less. The "Greatest Generation" had the greatest resources. Btw, their parents did not do as well overall as they went through the depression years. By the time things straightened out the benefits of reorganization went to their offspring. Also the "Greatest Generation" lived in a time of redistributed wealth. They had unions and worker rights. The wealth was not hogged by the top tier. It was socialist. That is where we are headed now. You dont like that because you are in the top tier. Well its time to share.

That is pure bologna, that generation worked for it and were prudent on their spending and saving, abhorred welfare and handouts, and took care of their own and there were much stronger family units and the wives and mothers didn't have to work to survive nor did they choose to just to have a 4,000 sf house.

You are right I am in the top 5% and I earned every penny of what I have and took from no one on the way up, nor did I stab anyone in the back, I spent every cent I had and mortgaged my home so my four kids could go to college and since they graduated ten or more years ago I have worked (two jobs) to build up my assets again for retirement and to leave them something so they will be better able to cope in the furtue. I had no more opportunity than anyone else in this country.

SHARE, I pay over 35% of my income in taxes, that's sharing in my book.

How they heck did you and much of America get so warped that sharing has become a right to those who have set different priorities in their lives, missed opportunities, failed to give 110% to achieve their goals, set goals for that matter?

There are unfortunate people who by no fault of their own indeed need assistance, but that sure as hell does not include the lower 95%.

It appears that you are going to get exactly what you want next Tuesday and if, a big if, all the promises are kept, you will also get a "Mediocre America" and even then you will not get the SHARING you hold so dear.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 12:12 pm

wildhorses;1041338 wrote: Unions do not affect our auto industry in any negative fashion. The auto industry has always been unionized and it worked just fine. We should be heavily taxing foreign cars sold in the country. And the CEO does not have to have an entire collection of mansions. The auto industry is top heavy just like all the other corporations. Corporations were unionized for many years and everything was just fine. Now most of a car is made outside the country and shipped in. This should be stopped. If a auto company starts to go under we should not bail them out. Let them go under. Another car company will spring up to take their place. Or another existing car company will expand to absorb the business. Like GM. Let them go under.

Now I know you have no idea what you are talking about. Everything was not just fine years ago. I wrote an article in 1978 about the problems GM was facing in regard to health care costs, and in 30 years nothing has changed, in fact it is worse.

The UAW has work rules and benefits that are crippling and from a time when there was no competition. People can be laid off at GM and then for a year report to a building to sit around all day while they are still paid. Their health benefits are even, after some changes, absurd in the real world and unaffordable. Their retirement liabilities are bankrupting the companies. I blame management as well for agreeing to all this over the years when they were fat dumb and happy.

Both the companies and the UAW failed to adapt to foreign competition and now they (perhaps we) are paying the price.

Get off the CEO kick, that is not even a rounding amount in the scheme of their financial problems. Tax imports you say? So you would have Americans bare the burden of propping up the auto industry in any case by paying higher prices for imported cars? Look at any parking lot and count the foreign cars, why do you think that is? If Americans were so concerned about union workers, simply buy only American made stuff, oh, wait you mean I may have to pay a lot more and perhaps even get lower quality in the bargain.

Either you are just yanking our chain or you really do need a dose of reality and the real world...outside of California perhaps.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 12:14 pm

Nomad;1041672 wrote: I imagine as each generation fades into darkness they think the country will go to hell without them.

I hate to break it to you Quinn but the country will survive without you.

You arent the greatest thing since sliced bread, your generation had some sucess and some failures. The same can be said about those before you and it will be true of those that come after you.

The world will move, it will evolve and some things will stand the test of time, others will be put to rest.

By the way its your generation that introduced welfare and you can take credit for the atomic bomb as well.

Hey. I'm not even eligible to be part of the greatest generation, they are a lot older than me.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:59 pm

Accountable;1041696 wrote: I'm way out of my depth here because it's not foremost on my radar, but isnt' (or wasn't) GM paying their union employees to sit on their arses, because layoffs would be in violation of the union contracts? They don't care about the company, they only care about being employed. Check that. They only care about getting a paycheck, the employment part seems to be an irritating sidenote.

Look, unions are good as long as they are realistic about their demands. The problem with them is the same problem with politicians. Once they've done what they need to do, they start "finding" things to "improve". That's where the damage is done. Doing away with unions would be wrong and bad for America - as wrong as allowing them to kill the cash cow they parasitize.

Well what you consider "realistic" is not in the best interest of the workers. And why should they not find things to improve? There is no damage in that.

If GM was paying their union employees to sit around because it was in the contract that they could not be laid off.....who agreed to that contract? Management had to agree to that contract. And I doubt they were sitting around. GM would have liked to fire them and make the remaining employees do the job of two. And why should they care about anything more than getting a paycheck? Does the company care about them? No they dont....so what comes around goes around. Management always tries to squeeze blood from their employees...so employees have to play the same game. Unions started because Corporations are blood suckers. The only way to deal with them is to play hardball. LOL...and those days are coming back. Get ready.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:03 pm

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1041890 wrote: Hey. I'm not even eligible to be part of the greatest generation, they are a lot older than me.

Yes you are...hate to burst your bubble....but you are damn old if you have been there 47 years. Unless you started when you were 5 years old. Oh yes ...now go ahead and tell us how you were a child genius and graduated from college at 4 years old. You were so much more ambitious than the other preschoolers that they sent you directly to college.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:44 am

wildhorses;1043506 wrote: Yes you are...hate to burst your bubble....but you are damn old if you have been there 47 years. Unless you started when you were 5 years old. Oh yes ...now go ahead and tell us how you were a child genius and graduated from college at 4 years old. You were so much more ambitious than the other preschoolers that they sent you directly to college.

Ill bet a dime to a dollar hes got hair growing out of his ears

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:08 am

wildhorses;1043504 wrote: Well what you consider "realistic" is not in the best interest of the workers.Keeping the company viable and growing is absolutely in the best interest of the workers. A stronger company means higher profits - more money to reasonably afford higher wages and better benefits.wildhorses wrote: And why should they not find things to improve? There is no damage in that.Improve was in quotation marks, meaning the "improvements" improve nothing. wildhorses wrote: If GM was paying their union employees to sit around because it was in the contract that they could not be laid off.....who agreed to that contract? Management had to agree to that contract. And I doubt they were sitting around. GM would have liked to fire them and make the remaining employees do the job of two.I'm having trouble finding an article since it was months ago, but I do remember employees being sent to a building to sign in and sit all day so that they can continue receiving pay & benefits for work they were not doing.wildhorses wrote: And why should they care about anything more than getting a paycheck? Does the company care about them? No they dont....so what comes around goes around. Management always tries to squeeze blood from their employees...so employees have to play the same game. Unions started because Corporations are blood suckers. The only way to deal with them is to play hardball. LOL...and those days are coming back. Get ready.It's truly sad that you feel that way. I would want to take pride in my job and where I work. I would want to see the model car I helped assemble and point it out to a friend - "See that? I built that. That guy is getting his kids to soccer practice because of me." But the picture you paint is one of bitterness and hate. Why would such a worker want to to even the minimum without being watched every minute?? You talk about quality work. Why would anyone do quality work when in such a hell hole? Why would anyone want to work there at all???

That's why I don't think you're description can possibly be accurate.

Employers want workers to be proud of where they work. It is in the company's best interest. A proud and happy worker (not content - content is different) will put forth the effort to make the best possible product or service. She will make suggestions to improve the product, including suggestions to make her own conditions better. Building a team or family atmosphere where peole like coming to work builds loyalty and reduces turnover, which increases the bottom line in the form of less recruiting and training. I could go on for awhile.

The antagonistic atmosphere you describe would make it impossible for the employer and employees to create such a workplace. How is that good for business or the employee?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:31 am

Accountable;1043721 wrote: Why would such a worker want to to even the minimum without being watched every minute?? You talk about quality work. Why would anyone do quality work when in such a hell hole? Why would anyone want to work there at all???

That's why I don't think you're description can possibly be accurate.

The antagonistic atmosphere you describe would make it impossible for the employer and employees to create such a workplace. How is that good for business or the employee?

Can I butt in ?

Havent you ever found yourself in a place and wondered how you got there ?

Maybe going in you had high expectations but management changed hands and its a whole new ballgame now.

The money keeps going up and you know you cant match the $ anywhere else without starting over from scratch.

Maybe youve got vacation time built up and you just hang on for that.

Maybe when you go home at night and look at your family across the dinner table it hits you that its not about me its about them, I have to keep going, they depend on me.

Maybe you have established meaningful friendships at work and that helps you keep going.

Maybe your skills are specific to that job and theres nowhere else to go.

Acc, workers all over the country are in the trenches and they dont always have the option of moving on.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:53 am

Nomad;1043733 wrote: Can I butt in ?

Havent you ever found yourself in a place and wondered how you got there ?

Maybe going in you had high expectations but management changed hands and its a whole new ballgame now.

The money keeps going up and you know you cant match the $ anywhere else without starting over from scratch.

Maybe youve got vacation time built up and you just hang on for that.

Maybe when you go home at night and look at your family across the dinner table it hits you that its not about me its about them, I have to keep going, they depend on me.

Maybe you have established meaningful friendships at work and that helps you keep going.

Maybe your skills are specific to that job and theres nowhere else to go.

Acc, workers all over the country are in the trenches and they dont always have the option of moving on.
So unions lock people into jobs they hate by artifically driving wages and benefits so high that it would be impractical to find more fulfilling work??

So they plod on day after excruciating day just putting their time in, not giving two sh!ts if the product they make is quality or a death trap, just counting the days until retirement or the sweet kiss of early death?

What an endorsement.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:03 am

Accountable;1043743 wrote: So unions lock people into jobs they hate by artifically driving wages and benefits so high that it would be impractical to find more fulfilling work??

So they plod on day after excruciating day just putting their time in, not giving two sh!ts if the product they make is quality or a death trap, just counting the days until retirement or the sweet kiss of early death?

What an endorsement.

Strictly speaking for myself Ive never worked in a union.

I had the opportunity with the post office but I rejected that because I thought they were under handed dishonest and didnt care for their tactics.

Needless to say I was black balled.

I have however been in many similar situations with different companies over the years.

A good attitude got me through some rough times but you can only take it up the kazoo for so long.

Unless you have to.

Sometimes you have to.

Have you ever lived in an inner city ?

All those people there, thousands of them, are you implying that if they all work really hard they will achieve the American dream ?

They are working hard, Ive worked right along side of them and let me tell you not much changes.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:45 pm

wildhorses;1040356 wrote: You were from San Francisco? Hey ex neighbor!!! What part of San Francisco? I am Nob Hill.

OK to the topic. The "Greatest Generation" had job security. There were laws to protect workers. You could not fire someone "just because". There was not "at will employment". Wages were not depressed. Most workers belonged to unions and had health insurance supplied by their employer. Banks were not allowed to engage in usury when it came to loans for homes. Veterans got GI loans at 3%. THREE PERCENT!!!!!!!! Gas did not cost an arm and a leg. There was some disposable income left at the end of the month.

Goods were manufactured in USA...which gave Americans jobs. Also those goods were made to last so you did not have to keep re-buying them over and over. If you bought a set of pots and pans they last years if not decades. Now the handles fall off after a year. Clothes, cars, furniture...same thing.

Employees got sick pay and vacation pay. One person in the household could work and support the entire family. Now with depressed wages both must work and sometimes more than one job.

I spoke at length with my Mom about this...before she died. She was from the "Greatest Generation". She ran down to me the differences between now and then. She told me that if my Dad and she were taken out of that era and put into another....they could have never even bought a house...never could have saved money. They both would have had to work all the time. They would have done just exactly what the next generation had to do.

She was particulary appalled at the corruption in the financial system.

Also they had health insurance supplied by the employer that was actually health insurance. No deductibles. If you had health insurance you were covered. If you had homeowners insurance...you were covered. There was no "cherry picking" the risk by insurance companies.

All of these things added up to a more stable life....more stable employment....more stable safety net for jobs and health care. More stable housing.

Jobs were all done here, not overseas. Products were made here, not in China. And I quote my dear Mother "The only people who didn't have a job, were people who did not want a job". And another quote from her "If we were the greatest generation, its because we had the greatest resources".

Ah yes, and my first job (in a major US corporation) paid me $1.49 an hour. You seem to forget that everything is relative. And most of the laws protecting people on the job did not exist, you could be fired or not hired for just about any reason.

Health insurance? Now you are really in my zone. When I started work in 1961, the only health insurance was for hospitalization and surgery, there was no coverage at all for out of hospital services and no coverage for prescription drugs, it was all out of pocket. There were no tax advantaged programs to save money as there are today, no 529 plans, no IRAs, no 401(k)s. Yes, many people had pensions, but not the majority by far.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:53 pm

wildhorses;1043506 wrote: Yes you are...hate to burst your bubble....but you are damn old if you have been there 47 years. Unless you started when you were 5 years old. Oh yes ...now go ahead and tell us how you were a child genius and graduated from college at 4 years old. You were so much more ambitious than the other preschoolers that they sent you directly to college.

You really have to stop showing us how uninformed you really are. The greatest generation fought World Was II and live through the great depression. They were born generally between 1910 and 1923. I was born in 1943 and for the record WWII ended in 1945, so in fact, I just barely missed being a boomer.

Actually my first formal job was at 14 and I started my current job at 17.

I didn't meet the qualifications to go to college out of high school, never had the right courses. I didn't even start college until 1969 and then at night school (after I got out of the army).

Anything else you have erroneously concluded?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:39 pm

Nomad;1043746 wrote: Strictly speaking for myself Ive never worked in a union.

I had the opportunity with the post office but I rejected that because I thought they were under handed dishonest and didnt care for their tactics.

Needless to say I was black balled.Hey, me too! *high five*Nomad wrote: I have however been in many similar situations with different companies over the years.

A good attitude got me through some rough times but you can only take it up the kazoo for so long.

Unless you have to.Yup.Nomad wrote: Sometimes you have to.

Have you ever lived in an inner city ?

All those people there, thousands of them, are you implying that if they all work really hard they will achieve the American dream ?

They are working hard, Ive worked right along side of them and let me tell you not much changes.I've never lived in an inner city & never want to, but that's one place where hoplessness is so deep that fighting to conquer it is almost irresponsible for some.

I can empathize with a 2nd, 3rd, etc generation single teen parent in the inner city. First, it's home, and leaving the only place you've ever known can be overwhelming. Staying there means ready & free daycare for her child so she can go look for work. But the kind of work that makes ends meet are as rare as hen's teeth. Leaving means leaving the family support, which means an ends-meeting job would have to pay for the additional costs. There are no safe options. Better to just give up and apply for welfare, but that might condemn the baby to a similar fate.

It tears my gut.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:28 pm

I stick by my belief that all you're seeing is an increase in "have it all, me too, live for today, I’m entitled generation who are rapidly finding out, at others expense, that it simply doesn’t work that way" simply by virtue of a population increase...

Just because you see more "have it all, me too, live for today, I’m entitled generation who are rapidly finding out, at others expense, that it simply doesn’t work that way" doesn't mean the percentages associated with it throughout all of mankind haven't changed...

I could be wrong...

I'm failing to see the perspective of "back then" so...

Ask people if they had more opportunities "back then" than they do now.

I'd be interested to see the results...

Better yet I'll do it...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:57 pm

JAB;1044764 wrote: This has got to be about the funniest thing I've read in this entire thread.

My BIL worked for many years at Ford and it galled him to see the waste. Union employees getting paid for doing nothing because business was slow yet they couldn't be sent home. Union employees leaving their shift while still on the clock to go to another job and effectively getting paid twice. You think this is a positive?

I think what's left is to unquestionably determine who's at fualt because of this...

On one hand you have "employees getting paid for doing nothing because business was slow" and on the other you have other companies, not to mention American companies, making automobiles more fuel efficient in Europe from which they could have filled the void by doing so in their American sectors...At least logically...

I'm having a huge difficulty in people not buying cars that would ultimately save them money all because they prefer bigger gas guzzling automobiles because it's "tridition"...

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 4:18 am

Scrat;1044712 wrote: And there you go. It becomes a cycle that perpetuates itself, poverty tends to breed poverty. There's such a thing as a fair price for a product or service the amount being up for discussion. To set standards like that if one person in a crowd of a 1000 can afford a 1000 a month rent then everybody can is wrong headed.

I can tell you that when it comes to the free market in housing around Seattle it is frankly out of control. The main reason being there is no competition for landlords ect and the rental companies. The only thing I see for a solution is (I loath to say this) government.

We need to bring back the projects perhaps, something to compete with the free market. Screw the landlords, if a tenant makes 1600 a month and is having to pay 1000 a month in rent for a decent place to live then it isn't going to work in the long run.

It seems one way gets you a welfare state, the other way gets you poverty and all of the associated ills with it.

The solution is a compromise of some sort.
Washington state may not have projects, but other states still do. I believe New York has rent controls. You can inject as much cash as you want to, but unless you address the culture of poverty somehow, the mentality of hopelessness will remain.

In 2002 we retired from the Air Force and moved to Las Vegas. We bought a house we could afford in a brand new neighborhood. Unfortunately, we were ignorant of the trend for people to buy far more than they could afford, and the rampant investment of rental properties. Our nice house was soon surrounded by a not-so-nice neighborhood. We honestly couldn't tell the rental houses from the owned homes. They were all neglected! Pride of ownership, which I'd always thought would be an automatic thing for anyone who shelled out their life's savings for a house, didn't exist.

How do you turn a subculture around?