Nobody should be drug tested for work even for jobs that may put lives at risk such as bus drivers or train engineers. I say this because drug tests merely discriminate against people who use certain types of drugs. Are we really going to claim that running a train if you’ve smoke marijuana in the past 28 days is more dangerous that doing so while drunk? Or that a cocaine user who hasn’t used in a few days and hence is able to pass the test is a safer bet than a pot user? And let me ask you this, if you were going to fly somewhere and you were told that your pilot was going to be either very drunk or high on cocaine which would you pick? I’d pick the coked up pilot any day (I’d pick neither but of course that’s not the real choice is it?). And of course we haven’t even scratched the surface of pharmaceutical drug use and how that can effect job performance.
Its just another way of invading people’s privacy in order to pretend we are making everyone safer with the effect of excluding perfectly good workers while letting dangerous ones pass. Its more security theater that takes away our liberty for nothing.
What you seemingly don’t realize is that each of these supposedly little “proposals” are very often implemented. And that the general trend is toward clamping down and controlling the poor while letting the wealthy commit egregious, society destroying acts with impunity. Even if such a proposal is never implemented, it displays the mindset of the powerful, and as such needs to be publicized so that we know who we’re dealing with and fighting against.
Then by all means look at it. There is a thing called a “search engine” you can use to find information on poverty levels, income inequality (one measure is the “gini coefficient”) and the trends of same. The facts are what they are. I’m not going to do your work for you. Its strange that you would’ve missed all these trends as they have been developing. Perhaps you have no real interest and instead prefer to take meaningless contrarian stances.
If you can’t produce the data, just say so – no need to equivocate. I find that in any discussion, opinions don’t sway anyone, but showing data might. If you’re interested enough to take a position, you should be interested enough to cite data to support your opinion.
The poverty level in the United States, with 15% (46.2 million people in poverty, of a total of 308.5 million) is comparable to the one in France, where 14% of the population live with less than 880 euros per month.
It might very well be that inequity is growing in the US, but you simply saying so does not make it true. Cite your sources.
Edit: I’ll provide a few that would have helped enrich the discussion:
or
Make assertions, by all means. But back those assertions with something concrete. (The above two examples are from previous posts I made to my Twitter stream months or years ago.)
“Many sociologists and government officials have argued that poverty in the United States is understated, meaning that there are more households living in actual poverty than there are households below the poverty threshold.[58] A recent NPR report states that as much as 30% of Americans have trouble making ends meet and other advocates have made supporting claims that the rate of actual poverty in the US is far higher than that calculated by using the poverty threshold.[58] A study taken in 2012 estimated that roughly 38% of Americans live “paycheck to paycheck.””
…
“Using a definition of relative poverty (reflecting disposable income below half the median of adjusted national income), it was estimated that, between 1979 and 1982, 17.1% of Americans lived in poverty, compared with 12.6% of the population of Canada, 12.2% of the population of Australia, 9.7% of the population of Britain, 5.6% of the population of West Germany, 5.3% of the population of Sweden, and 5.2% of the population of Norway.”
I really don’t know what you are actually arguing here. Is it that poverty isn’t a problem, or that we aren’t arguing from the actual data? I made an assertion that is supported by the links you provided. The boingboing comment thread is not the place for a thorough analysis of the issue of poverty in the first world. That poverty is growing, and has been for some time, is an obvious assertion. Its one that has been thoroughly discussed and analyzed ad nauseam all over the internet for years. Its not something we need to provide evidence for anymore. Does one really need to provide data for every assertion one makes, no matter how obvious? If I said antibiotics have helped stop the spread of bacterial infections would you really demand links to back it up? This topic has been front and center ever since the 2008 crisis. if you don’t know what’s going on its not my or anyone else’s duty to inform you.
I did not ask for that. I asked for a simple link. If posting a link is too much work, well… what are your opinions worth again?
It’s not obvious at all that income inequity is growing, since it’s a relatively recent phenomenon – and often hidden from public view. The USA is historically the place where immigrants come to make their fortunes, isn’t it? Nobody emigrates to the UK to found the next Google, or Apple do they? Nobody calls the UK the land of freedom and opportunity, do they?
The original quote in question was
brutal class stratified societies
Which, as I noted in quite some detail in the post directly above the one you just made, doesn’t really make any sense in the context of the USA.
What seems to happen is that a proposal comes out. People get up in arms. “It’s just a proposal, don’t get your knickers in a knot over it.” Time passes. People’s knickers drift back to the neutral position. The proposal is implemented. Activists squeak, otherwise crickets.
Which is rather a failure of empathy and foresight on the part of those saying it. Just because a working stiff may not be in need of medical cannabis and welfare now doesn’t mean they always will be. Unfortunately, opinions like that tend to go hand in hand with a variety of knee-jerk positions that conservatives in the working class hold. Strong emotional appeal to those in the working classes, but when examined closely seem to be deeply rooted in the “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” equation.
I’ve noticed the same trend. It’s troubling. So much talent, but his credibility, (with me, at least), is suffering from the exaggerations and misquotes. It makes me wonder. If the facts and a reasoned argument aren’t enough, then who is he aiming his articles at?
If you’re going to take it uncritically, the proposal is just trying to get a fuller picture of the situation of people who are receiving benefits and don’t work full time, so that the benefits can be shared equitably based on a fuller knowledge of the individual circumstances. Those who are unjustifiably working too little can be helped to find more work and the problem of underemployment can be ameliorated. Unemployment has damaging effects on people’s mental health and on communities, so this will improve both areas, as well as saving the government money and reducing dependence on the welfare system. Underemployed people will be categorized based on the reasons for not working full time, so in theory people aren’t going to go into hardship if they are sick or have commitments like children or other dependents that prevent them from working a full week. If all goes well, it could be a positive move towards getting people out of government dependence and into full time employment.
In practice, it really depends on how the system is implemented. There’s the question of how many people are actually abusing the system, and how much this costs the government. The savings that the government makes could easily be eaten up by the costs of implementation, and many families could experience real hardship at a time when it’s hard enough for them to get by, while any money saved goes to the salaries of a few government employees. The desire to save money could mean that people are generally worse off, and more attention is given to getting people off welfare than giving them a real alternative. It can also be difficult for some people to obtain proof that they are one of the ‘deserving poor’, so some people may well be taken off welfare when they should really have more support from the state.
Its crazy public policy. Consider the person working part time in a local small business. They are only getting 20 hours a week now but that helps them study or take care of family and its understood that in the near future as others leave they will get more hours and possibly end up managing. Nope, take the 30 hour a week job bagging groceries for a chain store across town or lose the support that lets you do something that will lead to better.
Or, the ultimate argument to those attacking Welfare, particularly in the UK: J K Rowling.
Imagine if she’d been forced to man a till or work a phone-bank till she was too exhausted to work on that idea she had for a school for wizards…
Hilarious, what big brass balls. That’s like asking somebody to cite their sources for saying that wars are expensive. You really don’t know that wealth inequality has been rising for decades? If you don’t then god bless your dreamy bliss. Either that or shame on you, because any denial of this is purely political and deliberately dishonest.
WAS. No longer IS. Social mobility is much higher in just about every other Western country. Welcome to 2013. I hope your 40 year isolated island vacation was relaxing…
Well, that’s my point. The USA wealth inequality stuff has kind of been sneaking up on us, and only took root since what… maybe the late 80s? And really went ballistic in the last 5-10 years?
Still a totally different thing than the
Both the US and the UK are brutal class based societies
I was commenting on. That takes generations, the whole wealth inequity stuff is new since I was born. That’s one generation.
Not that it isn’t a deeply troubling trend, because it is, but time matters here, as does previous history.
