Sorry Alice, that's not going to work very well for me. I'm well aware that Keith works rather hard to manage his own business. I'd rather figure out why Keith, who works harder than I do, is content to endorse a system where he's supporting those who don't.

Because, there are a lot out there who are much poorer than I am and work just as hard, if not harder and get nothing for it. That's who I care for.

Yeah, life isn't fair, but as Christians it is not our job to make it less fair.

And thanks for springing to my defense Cindy. To add on to your good intentions, it would be nice if people would stop imaging what other people are and just focus on the discussion at hand.

I would curious to know Alice if you would regard the Mittster as a producer? Seems like he is more like a director -- someone who has used leverage to direct money his way without producing much of anything.

BTW -- what the hell did Ayn Rand produce, since I know where that moocher nonsense comes from. Or Charlie Sykes for that matter.

Or yeah, he produces hatred and ignorance.

You can defend yourself, Keith. My only goal is to move away from what we think we know about each other and into what we can learn.

You say, "Because, there are a lot out there who are much poorer than I am and work just as hard, if not harder and get nothing for it. That's who I care for." That's along the lines of what @croc used earlier. So I'm curious. Do you assume I don't care about the poor?

PS the man's name isn't "Mittser."

PPS Agreed about the moocher rhetoric. I can't stand Sykes and I've never kept it a secret.

Of course not Cindy, but there are a large number of the poor out there that indeed work very hard.

But pardon me if I'm coming off making an assumption. I'm sure you'd agree there could be people up and down the economic ladder that don't work hard.

Speaking and writing in English is one of the keys to success in this country. Don't listen to these lazy liberals who want to keep people poor and speaking spanish.

You know, that's an important point. If we're going to have a communal dialogue, we're going to need a common language. Even Keith's bit of Latin above sent me scurrying to wikipedia.

Are we, by accommodating our differences actually making things worse? And who does that benefit.

My ancestors couldn't afford night school. They learned English from their children, who learned English in school...

@Cindy -

Don't be fooled by Schmitzy, our resident stooge here on Patch, as he doesn't really know any Latin either - that's just a phase he picked up from a lefty liberal blog that he was surfing while using the free Wi-Fi at his favorite Shorewood coffee shop.

The only two languages Schmitzy really knows is bad English (also known as drunken English) and Daily Kos (what whacked out liberals speak).

He actually thought that "res ipsa loquitur" meant "where is my booze". Just another knuckle dragging barfly.

No, you are simply a moocher.

@croc - You invoked Wal Mart in your first comment. That type of rhetoric is the problem, not the solution.

Isn't dependency also enslavement? Is there a point on the line between the realities of dependency and safety net to which we could agree? Let's find it.

(Most people working for Wal-Mart don't get 40 hours a week. If you don't like it, don't work for Wal-Mart. Also, tax-incentives are evil.)

That "contribute from my surplus income" comment interests me. I was thinking about exactly the same thing earlier this morning. But the "stabilize the working class" statement? Who exactly are you stabilizing and with how much? Get specific. We will find a middle.

Yes your ideas are generally considered socialist. But (and I think this will end up with a new post) it is how you assign that responsibility that might be abdicating it instead of what you seem to think you are choosing which is to feel glorified by your magnanimity.

Thanks for making me think on this one. Maybe I'll even put it together in a way that doesn't hack Margaret off in a couple of days.

BTW, I labeled the pundit class winners because they are paid to tell us what to think. Do you like the punditry? Do you find it has value?

I invest in Social Security and Medicare throughout my working life, it grows interest, supports other Americans who pay in, and, on that day they change the locks and make me retire I'll collect it. I'm no moocher. I'm an American.

@Taoist -

That's funny, as I regularly see WalMart employees that have tattoos, smoke, buy booze, drive cars, talk on cell phones, buy tv's and dvd's, have a computer, etc. Now I'm really confused! They can't afford to pay for their own health care, but they can afford luxuries? How can that be exactly?!?!

I think that the 'croc' part of your name implies that most of your ramblings that originate straight from the pages of the Daily Kos are in fact little more than a croc of ... use your imagination!

@Cindy Kilkenny - "if you don't like it, don't work for Wal-Mart".

Really, Cindy? You think a job at Wal-Mart is just one of many options for those people? You think while they stock the shelves and sweep the floors they say to themselves "Gosh, maybe I should reconsider that offer from Goldman-Sachs."? Go talk to them and discuss what options they have. Ask them how many other jobs they have applied for, how they are feeding their families and how embarrassed they are to need food stamps and other assistance.

@Swithin:

1) Define "those people."
2) Your argument that "those people" are already getting food stamps is interesting and somewhat defies the argument @croc laid earlier.

Cindy,

Wal-Mart is one of the largest employers in Wisconsin and the US. I don't see how using the example of a massive, profitable company that fails to provide health insurance for its employees is rhetoric. It's an uncomfortable fact.

"If you don't like it, don't work for Wal-Mart." This is a rhetorical point. Because so many employers in retail and food service have the same working conditions and meager benefits as Wal-Mart, you're effectively saying, "Don't work in retail or food service." Well, then how are stores and restaurants supposed to exist?

Again, I want to point out that what you're saying is that people who work those jobs should not expect to have the luxury of health security or the opportunity to become parents, because those jobs aren't worthwhile. Can you imagine how that sounds to someone working one (or more) of those jobs? They go to work, follow work rules, handle your food, put up with your petty complaints... if you haven't held a low-wage job in several years, trust me - it isn't easy, and it's thankless. This is the working class, and they need more help from society if they're going to have stable lives and raise children who can participate in the future. Not every cashier can become a manager, and we need cashiers.

Cindy,

"Glorified by my magnanimity?" That used to be called contributing to society, but now you're insinuating that I'm an elitist for not minding paying taxes. Maybe this sounds elitist as well - I'm thankful for the years I spent as one of the working poor, because it's given me a valuable perspective in these debates, as well as more compassion for my (low wage) employees. Who, by the way, get health insurance through my company.

I don't agree with Margaret's tone either, but I have to agree - it's inconsistent to simultaneously decry and employ partisan rhetoric.

"Not every cashier can become a manager, and we need cashiers."

I guess you don't use the automatic checkout lanes at Pick n Save, do you?

Cow Dung,

Thank you for pointing out another example of why the working class is in crisis - continuous advancements in automation, which make companies more profitable, which justifies more taxes on said profits, to provide equality of opportunity to the children of the workers displaced by those robots.

Cindy,

I know very well that many Wal-Mart employees receive food stamps. My point is that it's mean spirited to point to that fact as evidence of their personal laziness, and counterproductive to try to deny them those benefits.

@bren I think I'm quickly learning I'm not a fan of threaded comments. I'm not sure what we're talking about here. :) No, my attitude isn't always helpful. Show me up instead of giving in. I often rise to the occasion.

@croc Do the research and see if you can make the same argument about Roundy's. WalMart is just way too easy an out. Next thing I know you'll be calling someone Hitler.

Give me one piece of new information that isn't part of the liberal standard response, and we'll take it from there.

@croc Dude! I didn't call anyone lazy. You did and tried to blame it on me.

Party on with your high and mighty I'm-the-better-proletariat routine, but stay accurate in your finger pointing.

Croc:

Are companies truly more profitable after replacing workers with automation? In many cases, automation has enabled companies to compete in the global economy and stay in business. Not sure that profit margins have increased all that much...

The reality of it is that we need a better educated society as unskilled labor jobs are becoming fewer in number. We shouldn't have people trying to raise families on what should be part time jobs suitable for people looking for extra spending money...

Cow, my observations on the self check-out lanes are that I have become the unpaid employee of the company (never mind that it takes me back to the fun days of being a teenage cashier/hotel night auditor!). There's usually one employee there to help when the overhead light starts flashing, who is generally chatting with another employee or two. Other people don't approach the checkout with the same amount of glee that I do and take a long time. There's been a number of instances when the self check-out line moves more slowly than the cashier lanes and I move. So I would say that in that instance automation has not improved efficiency it has just saved labor costs.

Cindy,

Wow. You seemed to be opening the door to a constructive discussion, but your argumentation isn't serving you well.

"The standard Liberal response." Do you have any idea how insulting and closed-minded that sounds? And criticizing Wal-Mart is the same as comparing someone to Hitler? Give me a break; you're the one falling back on talking points here, and refusing to grapple with the real issues - structural problems in our economy that are producing a permanent underclass. Do you really think cashiers are payed better at Pick-N-Save?

"Party on with your high and mighty I'm-the-better-proletariat routine."

What the F? You accuse me of being an elitist for not griping about paying my taxes, and also for expressing solidarity with the working class. How about taking Romney to task for his offshore bank accounts? I'm going to take a page from your book here - you sound like an idiot.

@croc You are twisting words again. I don't have to play with you if you do that, you know. Your opinion will simply be discounted and at the end of the day you'll be ignored.

Is that how you intend to win one for the Kos?

I will go back to your earlier comment that started me thinking on the obligation to the poor. I'm muddling that one around and will probably have a post in a day or so you find equally annoying.

@Taoist -

I'm still waiting for that link....

Why don't you just provide it so that I don't have to keep on asking for it? Or is withholding proof of your previously asserted fact some kind of intellectual liberal elitist game that I'm unaware of?

Cindy, what am I "giving in" to here precisely? Are you expounding right-wing talking points to ignite a nonpartisan discourse? You responded "bingo" to my earlier attempt to discern the takeaway from your article but did not elaborate. Your responses to me and others to not reflect the ancestral/ethnocentric lens that I put forward; you are writing in the words of punditry; and indulging in some name calling, too. It's circular. Help me out here. Like Nurse Margaret I'd appreciate clarity. What's the takeaway? Thanks,

Cow Dung,

Nonsense! Over the past decade, where has the job growth been? Much of it has been in low-wage retail and food service jobs. These are becoming more and more prevalent and important to our economy; the argument that they're just for high school kids and retirees is a fig leaf for the unwillingness of these companies to provide living wages and benefits.

I agree completely that we need a better educated populace; that's why I don't demonize teachers, why I don't gripe about supporting my local schools, and why I get so pissed off when arch-conservatives push pre-scientific hogwash like "intelligent design" and climate change denial.

However, the darker picture is this - every job can be automated; we just don't have all of the technology yet. But what happens when we do? What happens when there are no low-skill or medium-skill jobs left? We're on that road right now, and it takes us to a place where hyper-profitable companies employ very few people, and do everything they can to avoid paying taxes. See: Apple, Google.

The primary deficit in politics today is a lack of vision. Imagine a future where our technology has developed to the point where we have an increasingly automated economy and a surplus of wealth, and everyone's basic needs can be met, at a subsistence level, with said level increasing over time as efficiency continues to improve. Ready for the twist? We're living in that future now.

Cindy,

Ah, an accusation "twisting words" - the last refuge of a person who is afraid to stand behind her own statements.

I'm fine with you not responding to me - my commentary on your statements here will stand whether you react to it or not. In fact, it would be better if you refrain from responding, if all you're going to do is tell me how much of a "standard liberal" I am, while refusing to address the substance of my points.

Croc:

Not every job can be automated, but the ones that involve more physical labor and little to no actual thinking are the ones that are most vulnerable to being taken over by automation. Personally, I don't see this as a bad thing--the automation industry has grown tremendously over the past couple of decades and provides many good jobs for people.

Wages will rise when restaurants and retail stores start having trouble finding people willing to take the jobs--it's a matter of supply and demand. I believe that having a population that is better educated and has skills will help in that regard.

@Taoist -

Still waiting for that link....

Sometime soon would be nice!

Cow Dung,

Actually, you're wrong about that - ask any accountant how he or she feels about their job security. Automation isn't just for manual labor anymore; product design, software coding, parts inspection, even medical procedures and surgeries - all of these have a clear path to becoming fully automated, and the technology is pulling us along. Customer service? As voice recognition improves, it will increasingly be deployed in call centers and retail settings. And ask "Siri" about how the technology is progressing.

At some point, all of this table thumping about "dial 1 for English" will be obsolete, because the software will understand all commonly spoken languages.

Final point - how far off do you think this future is? Consider what the world looked like 25 years ago (1987!) and extrapolate forward.

@Taoist -

Why won't you provide us with the link that you said you would that would act to confirm one of your previously asserted 'facts?'

Somebody has to write the software that's going to be replacing all those accountants...

I guess I can see a distinction between workers being replaced by automation and workers using automation as tools of their trade (like surgeons and product designers). Even Star Trek had human workers...

The argument that "someone has to write the software / build the robots / train people to use the tools" is actually exactly what I'm saying. Many lower-paying jobs are eliminated, and few higher-paying jobs are created. That's the point of automation, and it leads to a higher level of structural unemployment.

You'll also remember that in Star Trek, everyone worked for free. Why? Because the economy had developed to the point where human productive inputs were largely unnecessary, and everyone had financial security by virtue of the massive surplus created by their advanced technology. That's exactly what I'm saying - we're headed in that direction, but our politics aren't keeping up.

I guess I must have misunderstood you when you said that 'every job can be automated'. I took that to mean that automation would replace everyone in the workplace...

I'm also not sure that I agree with you that everyone in Star Trek worked for free...

@Taoist -

The link please - we're still waiting for it!

Look it up! From TNG on, the federation is a post scarcity society:

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

@Taoist -

I've searched extensively but can't find it anywhere. You're the one who asserted such as fact, so please prove it by providing us with the link or please admit that you were WRONG! It should be easy enough for you to find, otherwise, on what did you base the premise of the so-called 'fact' that you previously asserted to us?

THE LINK PLEASE...

I guess 'Federation' is just the futuristic term for 'Commune'...

I think I'm lost on my own blog post, but @hoffa what is it you want @croc to prove? I can't find the source of the link request. He seems to have gone all trekky on us now.

@Cindy -

On a previous board, the quasi-intellectual liberal elitist Taoist asserted that President Obama admitted that his campaign promises to the American people of cutting the deficit in half during his first term were in fact a mistake and that he now regrets having made such empty and rhetorical promises. Taoist has also claimed that he could provide us with a link to such admission of mistake from President Obama, but has failed to deliver on such promise to date.

As Taoist has advanced many of his assertions made on this board as being unrefutable objective fact, I'm just trying to establish his credibility by asking him to provide the link that proves that his previously alleged 'fact' is actually a fact as he claimed it was, as I've been unable to find any such admission from President Obama anywhere.

Either that or to admit that he was WRONG. But if refuses to do either, then I would seriously call into question all of his arguments and ignore him from here on in, as a commentator of low character and integrity.

Ah, Hoffa - confused as always.

Here is a direct quote of my statement:

"Okay, Jimmy, so if I can find a quote of the President admitting that his promise was ill-advised, you'll give up on this talking point? Will you go so far as to criticize Walker and Ryan for failing to extend the President the same courtesy?"

And here's your response:

"I'll give up the so-called 'talking point' if you can find something other than "(laughing) [s]hovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected." And it must pertain to his promise regarding reducing the deficits and debts, as that's what Walker and Ryan are calling him out on. So, where's the admittance from Obama - we're all waiting…."

As you can see, I never promised you anything - I merely got you to admit that you'd have to eat your words if I could provide such a quote. When I feel like it, I'll do five minutes of internet research, and I'm sure you'll be prompt in your apology.

In the meantime, if you ever find your sack (of cash or manliness, I can't remember which), you can take me up on my $10,000 bet that Scott Walker's 250,000 jobs promise will go unfulfilled, and consequently he himself is guilty of the exact same thing that he and Ryan so self-righteously accused the President of.

@Taoist -

You conveniently failed to mention how just like this time, last time you also stated that a brief internet search would in fact yield you finding such a quote from our President. Well, I did extensive internet research looking for such a statement from our President and haven't found any yet.

So, either take the alleged 5 minutes and give us the link, or admit that it doesn't exist!

And yes, if you provide the link, I'll apologize and agree to drop the talking point, as per my original statement.

Well, this is your big chance to get Hoffa to apologize - I'm waiting...

Then you two take it outside. I spent a few minutes today trying to find the argument on this post. Arrrrgh!

You don't like my name? I guess my immigrant ancestors are to blame for that. Perhaps if they had a better grasp of the English language, life would have been so much better for me...

You really take life a bit too seriously sometimes...

Wow, Cindy. I think you missed Cow's point.

Yes I guess I did miss CowDung's point unless he was trying to sound like an idiot.

Sarcasm and subtlety are not easily conveyed through this medium, that's for sure. Maybe that's part of the over-the-top problem?

This tone, "sound like an idiot," doesn't really encourage dialogue. What are we being asked to discuss?

Bingo!

A purely service based economy is not sustainable for the long term. We need to manufacture actual product/exports to build wealth for the country...

The Irish were treated poorly in ways that would never be allowed today. I'd argue it was unions and not the government - not for many years anyway - who put things into order for the working. Unions played an enormous role in the transition to the industrial society. Government stepped in to usurp the role leaving unions without a cause. (Think March of Dimes and polio. A victim of their own success.)

Ok, this will amuse some of you, but I completely agree with the WPA idea. Do it. I agree with Rachel Maddow - Think big. Work hard. Have something to show for our government expenditure other than jobs in foreign countries.

http://fairlyconservative.com/2012/07/11/obama-isnt-working/

While adjusting to a global economy is difficult, I also suggest it's the transition from the industrial to information economy that has us in trouble.

As fun as the Star Trek discussion is above, maybe our abundance is causing our problem. You see, as lovely as living in abundance sounds, the unspoken component to the Star Trek economy is that someone was on the other end willing to consume that abundance.

Besides, weren't they always on the brink of war? Somebody messing with someone else's peace alliance? (I am so much better at Monty Python than Star Trek. I may have just embarrassed myself there.)

I like your comment. I don't agree with every point, but it shows the kinds of things I think we could unwind together and figure out where we actually agree.

@Cowdung - I am not talking about the economy, I am talking about jobs. When we shifted away from an agrarian economy output from farms actually increased, but employment went from ~50% of the population to ~3% (IIRC). Today there are factories where they don't turn the lights on, unless the engineer needs to fix one of the robots. Manufacturing will continue, but with many fewer people. So any politician pushing for more factory jobs is advocating a short-term band-aid. It may be the case that the service sector may not be able to absorb all the lost factory jobs. 10% unemployment (or higher) might be the new normal. There will also be massive upheavals in pricing and availability of products and resources. The best way to prepare for this is to have a well-educated, mobile, flexible work force.

St. Swithin:

I can't disagree with any of that.

That it's nice to reflect on the importance of piercing the veil of punditry. However, it's tougher than it sounds, because once people are disagreeing, they tend to fall back on rhetoric.

Real argumentation takes time, and requires one to argue in good faith, and resist the impulse to score rhetorical points. Parrot a talking point if you want, but tread lightly; most talking points or distortions or outright lies, and they make for a cardboard sword. If your opponent makes a point, acknowledge it and move on - don't just change the subject and turn up the volume.

Argumentation also requires one to set aside their preconceptions about the opponent's viewpoint, and give them the benefit of the doubt.

If this can't be agreed on, then there's no point in anyone trying to make convincing arguments in this forum - just question the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with you, and parrot back something that someone on the TV said.

I think we pretty much agreed we need a common language before we can pull this off. English is a given, but I think it's more than that. We'll need to be able to agree on something before we start finding the middle points on the places we don't agree. Of course, we can always agree to disagree.

But you don't get to call anyone Mittster. :) Oh, and that we can call each other out for bad behavior as long as we really try.

The only take away that you'll ever get on the Patch is that we can agree to disagree.

That and that Obama is of low character and integrity for not having the decency to admit that his broken campaign promises were a mistake from the get go!

Why Mr. Hoffa, I consider that a bit of a dare.

@Cindy -

I'm just sayin - I've been on Patch since the SE Wisconsin sites were launched and I've NEVER seen a complete consensus reached on any of the discussion boards!

Best luck to you!

Most? Which ones did you skip?

As for fake names, there are people out there that will look up your name and then harass you at your home. Have you Googled yourself lately? Anonymity has its benefits.

St. Swithin used to use his real name on here. Not sure if it was an unfortunate event that caused him to change or not, but I agree that it is often unwise to reveal one's true identity and expose one's self and family to the hostility that can be practiced by those that don't like our opinions.

...and I have never know St. Swithin to 'hide' behind his 'nom de plume' in order to anonymously make mean and nasty comments or personal attacks on this site.

@Rees - please, just call me Saint.

Anyway, sometimes it's just more fun to use an alias. Mine is way cool! 'Bill' is boring.