Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<No I hate lazy people. This woman should be applauded for still wanting to work at her age.>> Wow. Just wow. The woman is working because she MUST work, NOT because she WANTS to work. Big difference. You remind me of a caller from Wisconsin named Terry, who phoned into the Randi Rhodes show today. He thought as you do, had the same philosophy about how people on unemployment were just lazy bums, which was based on his friendship with beer drinking buddies who are using their unemployment checks to buy booze and have BBQs at this caller's house. This caller hated unemployment and believed it was a handout that encouraged people to not work. He even had the balls to suggest that someone whose mortgage was underwater and could only sell it at a loss in order to relocate to another area for work, should definitely do so and then declare bankruptcy to cover the loss. Are you kidding me? This caller stated more than once that it was more responsible for the unemployed individual to sell his house at a loss and declare bankruptcy and move to another state for work, than to stay in his house and continue to make mortgage payments with unemployment checks. Did you catch that? The government -- we the taxpayers -- should pick up the tab on a mortgage loss through bankruptcy. That's OK. But it's apparently wrong for the government to give out unemployment -- which is an insurance program that all workers pay into -- so this man and his family can stay in that house, waiting for jobs to return to his area. One form of government assistance was acceptable. Another form of government assistance was not. Interesting that the caller sided with the part of government that benefitted the bank holding the mortgage, and not the person paying on it. These people are heartless, clueless morons.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Nice excuse. Blame the messenger for your laziness. You still voted out Feingold. If you lose your job and can't afford to pay your bills, you get what you deserve.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Worker productivity has been going up, that's a fact. As workers have been laid off, productivity did not decline. So what has to happen for this result to occur? Per worker productivity has to go up. However, there may be a breaking point. This was back in August. <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-10/worker-productivity-in-u-s-unexpectedly-fell-in-second-quarter.html" target="_blank">http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...ter.html</a> "Productivity in the U.S. unexpectedly decreased in the second quarter after employers expanded the workweek by the most in four years even as the world’s largest economy cooled." There is definitely a limit to what you can squeeze out of a worker. This was true for the Baby Boomer generation and it is true for any generation thereafter. As the workweek increases and wages remain stagnant, I'm sure unhappiness is also increasing.
