Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (246828)	8/21/2005 2:53:44 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571410

>So I'm not sure how this evolves; maybe we are doomed to an increasingly polarized society. A dark ages with the land owners and the surfs. Well, one of the signs of a feudal system is when a worker lives on the premises of his employer... there have been a lot of stories lately about airline workers having to live at the airports, either in the lounge or in trailers in the parking lot, because their wages have been cut so much. The Dark Ages may very well be on their way, and I'm doing my best to make sure I make the "lord" cut so I don't end up with the serfs. -Z

To: Road Walker who wrote (246828)	8/21/2005 3:04:57 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571410

latimes.com <SNIP> Disability insurance — now carried by more than 50 million Americans — generally promises to replace at least half of a person's wages in case of illness or injury. However, in a substantial number of cases, especially those involving workers with long-term or permanent disabilities, it doesn't deliver. The chief reason — and one that affects not only disability but the whole universe of employer-provided benefits — is a series of court decisions dealing with the federal benefits law known as ERISA. The decisions have prevented states from extending almost any form of consumer protection to these benefits, and have severely limited individuals' ability to successfully sue their insurers. "People who file disability claims today are worse off than they were two or three decades ago," said Judge William M. Acker Jr., who was appointed to the U.S. District Court in Alabama by President Reagan. "The law that was supposed to protect them has been turned on its head; the chief beneficiaries are now the insurance companies," said Acker, who has presided over a variety of disability insurance cases and has written extensively on the subject. That such a sweeping change could occur and that it could upend someone as well-heeled as Debra Potter illustrates how close most Americans are to the economic edge, where a few setbacks at work or in health can send a person tumbling. "The safety nets designed to protect people from being run over by economic forces beyond their control have been shredded," said California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi, a Democrat whose department is investigating UnumProvident </SNIP>

To: Road Walker who wrote (246828)	8/21/2005 6:12:48 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571410

John, Somehow our society has to get back to the idea that we are only as good as the bottom 20% are doing. It's just fine to have very rich folks, but it's not fine to have very hard working folks that can't support a family. I never heard of the bottom 20% theory you mention. The real problem with the bottom 20% is 2 fold: they are not really working, and they are not families (may be partially a cause and effect). But, I think you are right about, say over 10%, under 30% who may be working and supporting a family is still challenging. Somehow, we have to get back to the idea that we're all in this together... that the janitor at the factory is contributing, and deserves a decent life. On principle that he is a US citizen? In that case, why cheapen it by giving the citizenship to people who can't speak English, know nothing and share little of the culture? Why spend billions of dollars on illegal immigrants? Ok, let's say that a privilage of being a US citizen buys you a middle class standard regardless of market pay for the job he holds (if he does have a job). At the same time, there are billions of people outside of the US, who are, BTW, more deserving (measured by knowledge, skills, discipline, work ethics) who live way below the standard of living of US janitors. What is the justification for that? How long can the US afford to sustain this disparity? Global trade is a valve that makes it hard to sustain. Right now, the thinking is that that janitor is only worth the lowest cost it takes to replace him. He's a part, not a person with a family. As I already mention in another post, all private employers operate in a market place, that allows the pay to be only that. No amount of good will on part of the employer can change that. So I'm not sure how this evolves; maybe we are doomed to an increasingly polarized society. A dark ages with the land owners and the surfs. Well, something maybe something like that, but a much more meritocratical one, where the currency is knowledge and abilities, not land. But before we settle to something stable like that, I think we will deal with a lot of upheaval resulting from billions of Chinese, Indians and residents of former communist block, who have been freed from the socialist shackles, who are score well on the merit scale, and are hungry to gain the living standard appropriate for their abilities on the meritocratic scale. Joe