Post WW II Generations had it Easy

[bloodyminded]

People without a good work ethic don't fear losing their jobs because they'll happily live off whatever they can get from the system, or they'll try to scam/use someone for their money, or whatever else they cook up rather than work; or they'll be content to do as little as they have to in order to get by.

work ethic

Definition

The values of hard work instilled in or held by employees. For example, an employee with a good work ethic would complete projects and other tasks of a high quality, and take pride in the quality of his or her work.

There is a pretence that you are responding to what I wrote, and yet you don't even touch on anything I've said.

Again: for a person who enjoys his or her work, and likesbeing at work, and gets a lot of satisfaction from it, it is literally insane to apply the word "ethic" to it. Every person can spend zillions of hours and expend tons of energy to doing somehting they enjoy...and "ethics" is not related to this in any way.

I have always worked hard. But I don't consider this an "ethic," and it doesn't make me feel smugly superior to those who do not, or cannot.

[kimmy]

If you don't think Uncle Jim is relevant to the discussion, fine. I'll add my own addendum to dad's comment: if you weren't making money in 1966, you were a real schmuck too.

I think it's funny that you deny that housing prices are far beyond what they were back in your day.

I think it's funny that you can't concede that your generation's unprecedented wealth and high standard of living was accumulated by looting the planet to a degree unheard of before and unable to be sustained since.

I do find the "I got mine" attitude galling. You've left a legacy of environmental devastation and scarcity of resources and massive public debt, and you dismiss people pointing this out as "whining". There's little that can be done about it now. However, as you people age and old-people issues occupy an increasing spot on the public agenda as you petition for more public funds to take care of your withered old asses, people my age will remember that "they already had theirs."

Final thought: if your parents were "the Greatest Generation", how do you think you'll be remembered?

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

I have no idea. You could tell me but then how would I know you were telling the truth?

Doesn't matter...most of us survive without engaging in such wholesale and concentrated environmental destruction by design, or keep doing so in the face of such damning evidence.

[Guest American Woman]

There is a pretence that you are responding to what I wrote, and yet you don't even touch on anything I've said.

Again: for a person who enjoys his or her work, and likesbeing at work, and gets a lot of satisfaction from it, it is literally insane to apply the word "ethic" to it. Every person can spend zillions of hours and expend tons of energy to doing somehting they enjoy...and "ethics" is not related to this in any way.

I have always worked hard. But I don't consider this an "ethic," and it doesn't make me feel smugly superior to those who do not, or cannot.

I responded to exactly what you said. I responded to the "fear of losing one's job" aspect of your post, and then moved on to the definition of "work ethic," which requires that one do a good job and feel pride in their work. If they enjoy their work on top of it, so much the better, but it doesn't erase the fact that they have the qualities that fit the definition of "good work ethics." So I covered that end of your post, too.

Furthermore, someone without good work ethics generally wouldn't like any job, nor would they feel satisfaction, as they would rather not be working. They'd rather be feeding off the system; they feel entitled to be taken care of/looked after by someone else, or they feel they should be paid a lot for doing very little.

Someone who enjoys their job to the extent that you are describing generally ends up in such a situation because their attitude and their work ethics led them to be in such a position. Situations such as you describe usually don't occur out of thin air; people have to apply themselves in order to end up in such a position.

Edited December 14, 2009 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

I do find the "I got mine" attitude galling. You've left a legacy of environmental devastation and scarcity of resources and massive public debt, and you dismiss people pointing this out as "whining". There's little that can be done about it now. However, as you people age and old-people issues occupy an increasing spot on the public agenda as you petition for more public funds to take care of your withered old asses, people my age will remember that "they already had theirs."

Apparently I can add "bitter" to the list. Whiny, bitter, and victimized.

[bloodyminded]

I responded to exactly what you said. I responded to the "fear of losing one's job" aspect of your post, and then moved on to the definition of "work ethic," which requires that one do a good job and feel pride in their work.

But the definition of "work ethic," as you posted it, is devoid of menaing...because it's a conventional piety, empty phraseology.

"Ethic" connotes a MORAL quality. Taking pride in one's job is not a serious moral quality. Obviously. The most immoral, hateful human beings on the planet will take pride in a job well done.

Who cares? PRIDE is not "ETHIC."

If they enjoy their work on top of it, so much the better, but it doesn't erase the fact that they have the qualities that fit the definition of "good work ethics." So I covered that end of your post, too.

Simply repeating "work ethic" is not covering my objections to the term "work ethic."

Furthermore, someone without good work ethics generally wouldn't like any job, nor would they feel satisfaction, as they would rather not be working. They'd rather be feeding off the system; they feel entitled to be taken care of/looked after by someone else, or they feel they should be paid a lot for doing very little.

Since "work ethic" is meaningless, so is the rest of this passage. And yes....people who receive social assistance benefits really, really bother you, a lot more than they bother me. You have made this obssessively clear. This would include the world's major militaries--for whom you pay a lot more taxes than you do those immoral poor people who lack your profound "work ethic." Also, big farms, big sugar, big pharma, the high-tech industry...they all recieve lots of social benefits.

In fact, money funnels largely UP to the wealthy minority. Luckily, it is the poor who offend you, not the socialized lives of the super-rich.

Someone who enjoys their job to the extent that you are describing generally ends up in such a situation because their attitude and their work ethics led them to be in such a position. Situations such as you describe usually don't occur out of thin air; people have to apply themselves in order to end up in such a position.

No...people don't succeed because of some nebulous "work ethic." They succeed because they wish to succeed, for selfish reasons. They don't earn gobs of money because Jesus is rewarding their "work ethic."

And in case anyone throws a tantrum (since money is the singular and most crucial religion, with wealthy folks the attending Saints), I have no problem with people working to succeed, and trying to make lots of money.

But let's us not pretend that it's a moral quality, shall we not?

It's rational. It does not, however, bespeak of an "ethical" character.

We've taken "greed is good" to it's logical conclusion: greed is actually a MORAL quality. Hell, you even criticized people who "are content with little," as if that's a BAD thing.

Edited December 14, 2009 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

But the definition of "work ethic," as you posted it, is devoid of menaing...because it's a conventional piety, empty phraseology.

"Ethic" connotes a MORAL quality. Taking pride in one's job is not a serious moral quality. Obviously. The most immoral, hateful human beings on the planet will take pride in a job well done.

Who cares? PRIDE is not "ETHIC."

If you believe there's no such thing as a "work ethic," so be it. I'm not going to argue with you, but just because you see it as something that doesn't exist doesn't mean other people don't recognize it.

We've taken "greed is good" to it's logical conclusion: greed is actually a MORAL quality. Hell, you even criticized people who "are content with little," as if that's a BAD thing.

I didn't say that at all, but I really see it as an exercise in futility to spend any more time on this topic. I've said what I believe, so I'll leave it at that.

Edited December 14, 2009 by American Woman

[kimmy]

Apparently I can add "bitter" to the list. Whiny, bitter, and victimized.

Think back on this conversation in the not-too-distant future when your physical comfort and well-being are dependent on some whiny, bitter, victimized care-aide.

-k

Edited December 14, 2009 by kimmy

[August1991]

Think back on this conversation in the not-too-distant future when your physical comfort and well-being are dependent on some whiny, bitter, victimized care-aide.

Occasionally, I have to walk through Westmount and invariably I see the old rich codgers in their wheel chairs or with their walkers, at a cafe, and a Filipina or Jamaican attendant standing or sitting nearby. No doubt, I think, the boomer children have moved to Toronto or LA and hired 24 hour care to assuage any guilt about their elderly anglo parents.

How is this possible?

Let's skip the children in LA/Toronto aspect. Older people have money and can pay the younger people to care for them. Kimmy, think what that means.

[capricorn]

I heard someone comment the other day that the "Baby-Boomers had it easy." I know, I'm being like the Hockey Night in Canada guy by calling things in hindsight, but I believe what this person meant was that the baby Boomers basically had everything handed to them (sort of).

Your friend (or acquaintance) is partially right. IMO, the baby boomer generation played a large part in forming the nanny state that is now Canada. They were so numerous that the federal government couldn't help itself from giving them just about every social program they demanded. They had a massively large voice and represented the majority number of votes. Whatever party offered them the most government cash was sure to win their support. In order to administer and deliver these social programs, the feds (especially Trudeau) grew government to an unprecedented level. In turn, this provided boomers employment then they reaped massive pay increases in the 70s, compliments of Trudeau.

Anyone who likes and defends the myriad of safety nets that prop up contributors and non-contributors alike in our society can thank the baby boomers who demanded them and the government(s) who bought their support.

[kimmy]

Older people have money and can pay the younger people to care for them. Kimmy, think what that means.

I suppose what it means is that old people will get the best care that $11/hr can afford.

I know several care-aides... I don't think I'd even trust them to take care of my cat. They're poorly paid, poorly trained, and frankly not particularly gifted people-- if they were, they'd be doing something else. The contempt and disgust they have for the people in their care is disturbing. I find it frightening to think that I might some day depend on people like this. I take comfort in the knowledge that some sort of cataclysm will most likely eradicate our entire species before I get that old.

-k

[August1991]

I suppose what it means is that old people will get the best care that $11/hr can afford.

I'm certain that the matrons of Westmount (or their boomer children in Calgary) are not paying $11/hr for the Filipina standing by the walker, or sitting at the table in the coffee shop.

They can afford to pay much more. And they do.

----

Two points, Kimmy.

How do we decide the price of what service? In the future, the young people today can possibly charge more for their services.

Second, who decides tax rates? Old people today believe that they are rich because they have generous pensions, lots of money, paper, lots of promises. Who says that these promises are genuine? As people in BC and Ontario are learning, tax regimes can change.

[Guest American Woman]

Think back on this conversation in the not-too-distant future when your physical comfort and well-being are dependent on some whiny, bitter, victimized care-aide.

I'd love to think back on this conversation in the "not-too-distant future," but they say the memory is the first to go, so I'm sure by next week I won't recall a thing.

Edited December 14, 2009 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

If you believe there's no such thing as a "work ethic," so be it. I'm not going to argue with you, but just because you see it as something that doesn't exist doesn't mean other people don't recognize it.

I didn't say that at all, but I really see it as an exercise in futility to spend any more time on this topic. I've said what I believe, so I'll leave it at that.

I agree, the impasse has reared it's head and there's no point to go on. Peace.

[kimmy]

I'm certain that the matrons of Westmount (or their boomer children in Calgary) are not paying $11/hr for the Filipina standing by the walker, or sitting at the table in the coffee shop.

They can afford to pay much more. And they do.

Being willing to pay extra for something, and being able to actually buy it, are two different things. I'd be willing to pay for a really nice seafood dinner. In this town, it's not going to happen regardless how much I was willing to pay.

I'm skeptical that shopping for care-aides is like shopping for cars. I don't think you can look over a list of brands and think "well, for $11/hr I could hire a Kia, and if I was willing to pay a little more, I could get a Honda... but if we can afford it I really want to get this wonderful BMW." How are you going to tell if the care-aide you're hiring is a Kia or a BMW? You can't turn a Kia into a BMW by paying more for it.

Even supposing there's some agency that's able to guarantee its customer a much higher standard of care, that's probably not applicable to most Canadians. Most elderly Canadians aren't going to be hiring private care-aides from high end agencies. Most elderly Canadians will probably be lucky to get what they can get, or end up in a long-term care facility where they don't have a say in the matter. I do know some people who work at one of these facilities... they're terrible. And the facility they work for is grateful to have them, because they're chronically short of people.

Two points, Kimmy.

How do we decide the price of what service? In the future, the young people today can possibly charge more for their services.

It's a fair bet that the service will be provided as cheaply as possible. The quality of people providing the service will be about what you'd expect from that premise.

Second, who decides tax rates? Old people today believe that they are rich because they have generous pensions, lots of money, paper, lots of promises. Who says that these promises are genuine? As people in BC and Ontario are learning, tax regimes can change.

As with kimmy and her seafood dinner, so with aging people and the quality of care. What you could theoretically afford to buy and what you can actually obtain are not always the same thing. People might assume that the money they've accumulated will guarantee them high-quality care when they are unable to care for themselves... I am skeptical that such a thing will be available whether they've got money or not.

As for the value of all of these assets people accumulate during their lives, you're right. In 2000, a couple who were friends of my family were retiring early because they had accumulated a stock portfolio full of shares in Nortel. Needless to say, that didn't work out well. If your big asset is the house that you bought in 1983 for $57,000 and is now evaluated at $421,000... you can only get your $421,000 if somebody can afford to buy it. A lot of peoples' nest-eggs are in the form of funds that are made out of stocks.

All of this stuff... paper money or stocks or assets like a house... the value of all of it in the future depends on the idea that the future is as prosperous as the present. That's not a given.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

All of this stuff... paper money or stocks or assets like a house... the value of all of it in the future depends on the idea that the future is as prosperous as the present. That's not a given.

-k

Sure, Kimmy, it's not a given. A lot could happen - a meteor could hit the earth, nuclear annihilation could happen, a global plague for example. But historically, over thousands of years, prosperity has gone upwards due to improvements in technology, knowledge and social organization.

So, I'd say it's a safe bet in general. Now, will your money go up day-by-day, month-by-month, year-by-year, decade-by-decade ? No, probably not, probably, and very likely.

[Shwa]

But historically, over thousands of years, prosperity has gone upwards due to improvements in technology, knowledge and social organization.

Hmmm. Then I have to ask for whom and when? And while we're at it, where? Add to the mix that 'history is written by the victors' I am sure a comprehensive history from perspective of the poor over the ages would compound the problem of answering that. You can quote Marx if you like.

I often wonder through a little thought experiment: who is more prosperous? A hunter-gather deep in some isolated, but abundant forest or an executive in the middle of a upper middle class burb?

So I don't really think the post-WWII generations "had it easy" per se, but they have deffo had it excessive. And sometimes excessive isn't easy if you know what I mean.

[Michael Hardner]

Hmmm. Then I have to ask for whom and when? And while we're at it, where? Add to the mix that 'history is written by the victors' I am sure a comprehensive history from perspective of the poor over the ages would compound the problem of answering that. You can quote Marx if you like.

I often wonder through a little thought experiment: who is more prosperous? A hunter-gather deep in some isolated, but abundant forest or an executive in the middle of a upper middle class burb?

So I don't really think the post-WWII generations "had it easy" per se, but they have deffo had it excessive. And sometimes excessive isn't easy if you know what I mean.

Generally, for everyone everywhere.

We have more channels of media than we did a generation ago, and when you factor in the fact that more bad news is reported than good, you have a compounding effect that leads to negativity.

There are far more choices for people now than there were even fifty years ago. This is true in North America, in Europe, in China and even in Africa.

Don't confuse the relative poverty of some parts of the world with the general improvement of living conditions. The relative poverty gap continues to be large.

[bloodyminded]

I'm inclined to agree with Michael Hardner. Admittedly, my ignorance about the state of the world (as opposed to the state of the minority of wealthy industrialized nations), say a hundred years ago, is limited...to put it generously.

But if we look back over the past five to seven decades, there has been an overall improvement, even though we're generally more aware of the massive suffering that goes on. True, it's a complicated matter, and I don't wish to sound at all triumphalist about it. But the improvements are real enough.

Still, the rising gap between rich and poor is a troubling sign. Even Milton Friedman and the Chicago School used to say that a rising gap could have dire consequences...though, to my knowledge, they dropped this warning quickly, presumably on absurd ideological grounds, as soon as the gap really DID begin widening exponentially.

[Shwa]

Hmmmm. I am thinking you have made a bit of a snap reply that reveals a cultural centrism of sorts. You can't really be faulted, but I did provide a thought experiment.

Firstly, I am not sure how one would factor 'media channels' as any real indicator of prosperity. Whenever someone vaunts about our richness in media I am often reminded about the line, '500 channels and nothing on.' Do you consider the amount of garbage produced to be an indicator of prosperity?

If not, then how do you arrive at the conclusion that this historical improvement pertains to 'everyone, everywhere?" I mean, I haven't done extensive research, but what I have seen indicates that the only people who proclaim such a universal are those that have some investment in the controlling mechanisms for that particular point of view (victors = history) without actually considering the counterpoint.

Birth & death rates? Conflict levels? Poverty levels or percentages? Demographics of wealth and health?

You do say that there are "far more choices," but what does this really mean and can you qualify this in any meaningful way that takes into account any cultural relativist views that you may hold? Even if we limit the discussion to North America, any prosperity gained over the past couple of hundred of years was at the expense of some pretty large segments of the population.

Like I said somewhere else, we have larger houses to hold more crap, but does that truly indicate prosperity and if it does, should it?

[bloodyminded]

If not, then how do you arrive at the conclusion that this historical improvement pertains to 'everyone, everywhere?" I mean, I haven't done extensive research, but what I have seen indicates that the only people who proclaim such a universal are those that have some investment in the controlling mechanisms for that particular point of view (victors = history) without actually considering the counterpoint.

Birth & death rates? Conflict levels? Poverty levels or percentages? Demographics of wealth and health?

You do say that there are "far more choices," but what does this really mean and can you qualify this in any meaningful way that takes into account any cultural relativist views that you may hold? Even if we limit the discussion to North America, any prosperity gained over the past couple of hundred of years was at the expense of some pretty large segments of the population.

Well, Shwa, these are really good points, which I admit I overlooked. The victors = history remark is pretty incontestable, actually.

Read a bunch of Victorian novels (maybe subtract Dickens), and one would think that it was an era of genteel wealth, comedies of manners, good order and perfect literacy.

While in fact, Victorian England was something of a stinkhole, with grinding poverty and violence and profoundly unjust class distinctions keeping folks "in their place."

The triumphalist view of modern economic history makes many of the same mistakes. It also demands a recurrence of the old class biases: why does so much of the world disagree with our triumphalist view? Why...because they're ignorant, and they're envious, and they're ingrates.

The fact that poverty is so widespread and devastating that it's virtually the human condition (though I don't suggest it's somehow "natural") should give us some pause.

Edited December 14, 2009 by bloodyminded

[eyeball]

I think it's funny that you can't concede that your generation's unprecedented wealth and high standard of living was accumulated by looting the planet to a degree unheard of before and unable to be sustained since.

-k

I don't think anyone imagined the payback for this inter-generational theft would occur in their lifetimes. I recall Haddon in the movie Contact who wanted to give something back to the people from whom he'd taken so much.

For what its worth some of us are trying to develop better resource management regimes. I just hope it isn't to little too late and that it works.

The real shame is that population control has been such a taboo subject in our society.

[Michael Hardner]

Hmmmm. I am thinking you have made a bit of a snap reply that reveals a cultural centrism of sorts. You can't really be faulted, but I did provide a thought experiment.

Firstly, I am not sure how one would factor 'media channels' as any real indicator of prosperity. Whenever someone vaunts about our richness in media I am often reminded about the line, '500 channels and nothing on.' Do you consider the amount of garbage produced to be an indicator of prosperity?

Media channels aren't referenced to be a measure of prosperity, but as a rationale to explain why things seems so much worse today than in the 1950s. There are more channels, therefore apparently more dissent, and more unhappiness.

But, in my view, that's an illusion.

If not, then how do you arrive at the conclusion that this historical improvement pertains to 'everyone, everywhere?" I mean, I haven't done extensive research, but what I have seen indicates that the only people who proclaim such a universal are those that have some investment in the controlling mechanisms for that particular point of view (victors = history) without actually considering the counterpoint.

Birth & death rates? Conflict levels? Poverty levels or percentages? Demographics of wealth and health?

How about the amount of malnutrition in the world today, versus 1970 ? Down more than 50%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition

Did you know that ? I didn't. Why do you think that is ? I have no idea, which is why I submit my theory of "more channels make for more apparent misery".

You do say that there are "far more choices," but what does this really mean and can you qualify this in any meaningful way that takes into account any cultural relativist views that you may hold? Even if we limit the discussion to North America, any prosperity gained over the past couple of hundred of years was at the expense of some pretty large segments of the population.

You have to be careful to be clear about relative poverty versus absolute poverty.

And, choice include other things than economic choices. For example, people can now choose to be single, or not more easily, to have careers, or to change careers more easily, to be openly homosexual, or not... the list goes on.

Like I said somewhere else, we have larger houses to hold more crap, but does that truly indicate prosperity and if it does, should it?

House prices seem to me to be higher, and some have submitted reasons for that. I think that the higher price of real estate works against my idea that life is generally better for people. From what I have seen it's harder to buy a house today, at least in bigger cities.

[eyeball]

Doesn't matter...most of us survive without engaging in such wholesale and concentrated environmental destruction by design, or keep doing so in the face of such damning evidence.

What are people to do in the face of evidence that says we can catch fish and utilize other natural resources in a sustainable way? In the case of the fishery I'm involved in there are now only about 15 boats where there used to be several hundred.

As far as trying to survive by engaging in wholesale concentrated destruction in the face of damning evidence of the damage it does, including environmental (depleted uranium comes to mind)... you should think twice about where you're throwing your stones. If anyone on this planet should have known just how unsustainable and destructive the industry of war is, its the Post WW2 Generation.

[eyeball]

Doesn't matter...most of us survive without engaging in such wholesale and concentrated environmental destruction by design, or keep doing so in the face of such damning evidence.

By the way, you eat and consume things just like anyone else right?

How can you keep doing so in the face of the damning evidence that consumers are the real problem?