“Dream is dead”: MLK Day ad campaign in NY shines light on abortion
by Kelli
In 1963 when Martin Luther King Jr. shared his Dream with the nation, he never envisioned an America where ‘reproductive justice’ would end more than 56 million innocent human lives. His dream never pictured a nation where black boys and black girls would never be able to join hands with white boys and white girls, as sisters and brothers, because ‘freedom of choice’ determined some humans are simply not equal….
Planned Parenthood continually touts that they gave Martin Luther King their first Margaret Sanger Award in 1966. What they fail to tell the public is that abortion wasn’t legal in ‘66….
Dr. King wrongly believed birth control would reduce poverty. He also wrongly believed Planned Parenthood was interested in elevating poorer blacks. Their abortion numbers tell a completely different story.
~ TooManyAborted.com’s Ryan Bomberger, remarking on his organization’s MLK Day “Dream is Dead” ad campaign in New York, as quoted in a press release published by Canada Free Press, January 20
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
His dream never pictured a nation where black boys and black girls would never be able to join hands with white boys and white girls, as sisters and brothers – I’ve seen black children playing with white children. We seem to have plenty of both black children and white children. There are many mixed families too. Where is this place where there is only one or the other?
Dr. King wrongly believed birth control would reduce poverty. – it can’t be said if he was right or wrong. There is simply no way to judge what may have eventuated if birth control wasn’t around. Poverty may well be rife without it.
He also wrongly believed Planned Parenthood was interested in elevating poorer blacks. Their abortion numbers tell a completely different story. – another judgement call which cannot be verified one way or the other. Or, since he’s mentioned numbers, is Ryan confusing escalating with elevating?
Reality,
I grew up in a neighborhood and attended a school with a large Jewish population. My best friend was Jewish. So millions of Jews didn’t really die in The Holocaust.
It had long been argued that birth control and abortion would reduce poverty. I think its safe to say it has done nothing to eliminate poverty and no one can say for sure if poverty would be any worse or better. Its like the police captain who tells the residents of a crime ridden community that the crime problem would be a lot worse if not for his leadership. Maybe it would, but that makes little difference to the people living behind triple locked doors.
Amen Mary.
The dream is dead for more than 56 million.
Nothing to argue.
Those aborted black children are the ones who never had the opportunity to play with children. Of any “color.”
The mercy of the wicked is cruel.
Playing in the background: Detour by Patti Page
“Detour, there’s a muddy road ahead, detour
Paid no mind to what it said
Detour, oh these bitter things I find,
Should have read
That detour sign”
Reality: Got any statistics to back up your judgment call?
The CDC talks about what is ‘reported’. In a cash business do you ‘really’ think everything is reported to the IRS or the CDC? ;o/ That would greatly increase the figures. 56 million abortions and counting is one figure that is projected by some sources. Wasting time and money on ‘disposable’ items is no way to become wealthy esp. when it comes to future generations .. or lack of the same.
CDC Statistics include:
20 million Annual New Infections and 110 Million Total Infections (Prevalence) at a cost of 16 billion{1} The only count 8 common STIs and STDs. There are more than 30 or was it 50. Do your own research. 311 million people in the US at a prevalence of 110 million would be 1 in 3 with a STD/STI.
Under Race/ethnicity – “Among the 28 areas that reported cross-classified race/ethnicity data for 2010 (Table 12), non-Hispanic white women and non-Hispanic black women accounted for the largest percentages of abortions (36.8% and 35.7%, respectively), whereas Hispanic women and non-Hispanic women in the other races category accounted for smaller percentages (21.0% and 6.5%, respectively). Non-Hispanic white women had the lowest abortion rates (8.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratios (141 abortions per 1,000 live births), whereas non-Hispanic black women had the highest abortion rates (31.8 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratios (483 abortions per 1,000 live births).”
1) http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/sti-estimates-fact-sheet-feb-2013.pdf
2) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6208a1.htm?s_cid=ss6208a1_w
Interesting fact from the TooManyAborted website linked to above:
in NYC, more black babies are aborted than are born alive! NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene reports that in 2011 (latest year for available NYC stats) for every 1,000 black babies born alive, 1,223 are aborted. Compare that to 265 abortions for every 1,000 live births among whites and 614 live births for every 1,000 Hispanic live births. Abortion is epidemic in the black community.
Those NYC numbers, in particular for the black population, are staggering.
Thank you for this post Kel.
Dear God. WHAT HAVE WE DONE???!!!
Ryan tells it as it is.
Population control at its best isn’t it. Black leaders are all too happy to support aborting their own group as it keeps their constituents in their place and “enslaved.”
Its kind of ironic to see that this is their response to the black community’s decades-old dilemma of “how to successfully raise young black men.”
Was Dr. King aware that PP founder Margaret Sanger addressed the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan?
Its not like she just walked down the street to the meeting hall. It was all very covert and I would think potentially dangerous, yet that didn’t stop Sanger.
How nice the ladies could take time away from burning crosses and terrorizing Black citizens to attend.
President Obama must be acutely aware that the abortion kills black children at a much higher rate than any other racial group. It really is an ethnic cleansing, “culling out the undesirables from our population.”
Yet Obama stands firmly behind the abortion industry.
How? Why?
Hi Del,
He, like most Black Americans, Jews, and Catholics, puts his loyalty to the Democrat Party first and foremost. Liberals are always liberals first. Abortion is a sacrament of the Democrat Party.
Who provides this sacrament? The abortion industry.
Has anyone seen the things Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece Alveda has written about him? (and the issue in general) Apparently he was pro-life, despite the fact many abortion rights groups try to claim he’s “one of them.”
I grew up in a neighborhood and attended a school with a large Jewish population. My best friend was Jewish. So millions of Jews didn’t really die in The Holocaust. – you grew up in Germany in the 1930’s and 40’s? Or are you trying to say that only black fetuses get aborted, never white? Or what?
So is it I think its safe to say it has done nothing to eliminate poverty or is it no one can say for sure if poverty would be any worse or better.? The second part of your statement was the point I was making.
Reality: Got any statistics to back up your judgment call? – Ryan’s got them :-)
Ryan tells it as it is. – no he doesn’t. He’s attempted to hijack MLK day to push the propaganda of his cause.
Reality,
Your response makes no sense.
So we agree then that birth control and abortion, despite the claims of advocates of “family planning” can not be shown to in fact reduce poverty.
Mary says:
January 21, 2014 at 5:32 pm
Reality,Your response makes no sense.
That’s why we don’t read his posts.
And I can’t decide whether yours does or not Mary, since you didn’t respond to the questions :-)
There is no way to accurately ascertain whether birth control and abortion have or not. The necessary comparative environments don’t exist. There is zero basis on which to claim that they haven’t reduced poverty. Logic would indicate that reducing unwanted and unplanned births would be more likely to reduce the risk of poverty than increase it.
“Logic” dictates a lot of things Reality, but human nature and problems are considerably more complex. I’m glad we agree though that as of yet, nothing proves that abortion and birth control in fact reduce poverty. I remember one PP woman wailing how PP is so essential because there are “3,000 unwed mothers on welfare in X County” where I live. Lady, if you and your organization were doing the job you demand more of the taxpayers’ money to do, then why are there 3,000 unwed mothers on welfare in X County?
I interpret the article that Ryan was referring to aborted black and white children who died because of “reproductive justice” never enjoying life or living Dr.King’s dream, not that black and white children would cease to exist altogether, as seems to be your interpretation. The fact you see black and white children doesn’t prove him wrong, just as my growing up with Jewish children and adults, in the late 50′, early 60’s BTW, doesn’t prove there weren’t millions of Jewish children and adults who were denied their right to enjoy life.
but human nature and problems are considerably more complex – indeed they are, which is in part why abortion exists.
I remember one PP woman wailing how PP is so essential because there are “3,000 unwed mothers on welfare in X County” where I live. Lady, if you and your organization were doing the job you demand more of the taxpayers’ money to do, then why are there 3,000 unwed mothers on welfare in X County? – how many might there be without birth control and abortion? 6,000? 10,000?
I interpret the article that Ryan was referring to aborted black and white children who died because of “reproductive justice” never enjoying life or living Dr.King’s dream, not that black and white children would cease to exist altogether – and yet he stated His dream never pictured a nation where black boys and black girls would NEVER be able to join hands with white boys and white girls.
If someone is struggling to make ends meet would having an extra mouth to feed be more likely to increase or decrease their poverty?
If someone is just making the grade in their studies, would having an unplanned child make them more or less likely to complete their studies and get a well paid job to support future, planned children or see them fail and work at walmart? (walmart ran an in-house food bank at christmas so some of their employees could actually eat)
“That’s why we don’t read his posts.”
That among many reasons.
Reality,
How many would there be without birth control and abortion 6,000, 10,000? I thought we agreed this can only be speculation. Point is her organization is either not doing the job it demands more of the taxpayer dollars to do, or human nature and complicated issues indicate its just not a simple matter of handing out birth control pills.
If the children were not allowed to be born then obviously they will NEVER join hands.
Again you are arguing “logic” and as we know human nature and circumstances more often than not do not adhere to logic.
That was very noble of Walmart but it proves what? Perhaps a spouse lost a job, an elderly relative had to come to live with them and is straining the finances, or maybe their home was damaged in a fire. Did employees fill out surveys as to why they needed help? Again, speculation.
I thought we agreed this can only be speculation. – hence my use of a question mark.
Point is her organization is either not doing the job it demands more of the taxpayer dollars to do – we don’t know. Again, how many might there be if b/c and abortion weren’t available? Use of b/c and abortion would tend to indicate that there are less rather than more.
human nature and complicated issues indicate its just not a simple matter of handing out birth control pills. – agreed.
Again you are arguing “logic” and as we know human nature and circumstances more often than not do not adhere to logic. – and that is what I was saying about Ryan’s claim.
That was very noble of Walmart but it proves what? – asking non-starving employees to donate food for starving employees is noble? How about paying a liveable wage. (It was just an aside anyway, that’s why I put it in brackets. :-) )
Reality,
Its a ploy I have seen often by PP, how much worse a problem would be without them. Speculation. At least we agree on that.
Asking non starving employees to donate food for starving employees is noble? Oh please, isn’t that a tad over done?
Maybe the employees did this on their own to help fellow employees who were facing hardships that year for whatever reason. It happens, no matter how well paid you are. I think it was a very noble gesture on the part of the employees and certainly in keeping with the Christmas spirit.
Our church collected food, gift cards, and cash for members who’s son was stricken with cancer. Sadly he died. No the problem wasn’t medical expenses, these were covered by their insurance company and they travelled to the best hospitals in their efforts to save their son. The problem was lost work days, bills, house payments, travel and hotel costs etc. They weren’t poor, just people hit with an unexpected tragedy.
Speculation. At least we agree on that. – well I’m yet to see any cogent argument that poverty has increased due to b/c and abortion. As I said, having an extra person to support when already struggling is most likely to make things worse. Nor do I see how it could be claimed that an absence of b/c and abortion would not result in more unwed mothers.
Asking non starving employees to donate food for starving employees is noble? Oh please, isn’t that a tad over done? – it is what happened.
No the problem wasn’t medical expenses, these were covered by their insurance company and they travelled to the best hospitals in their efforts to save their son. The problem was lost work days, bills, house payments, travel and hotel costs etc. They weren’t poor, just people hit with an unexpected tragedy. – yes, I know of other tragic cases such as this.
Well Reality,
I have yet to see any cogent argument that birth control and abortion decreases poverty or the occurence of illegitimacy. That this doesn’t fit “logic” is irrelevant. Human nature and circumstances seldom fit logic.
An extra person to support when one is struggling may not just be a new baby, but an aging relative, or in the example I gave, a stricken child, who’s illness or accident is straining the family resources.
Studying countries which have moved from breeding like rabbits to using family planning methods and the outcomes which impact on factors such as poverty may tell us something. I haven’t seen any.
It may be convenient to dismiss logic but it’s rather obvious that there would be less unwed mothers with b/c and abortion being available than if they weren’t. Or can you describe a scenario which would indicate otherwise?
We were talking about the possible impacts on poverty levels of b/c and abortion. Aging relatives and stricken children don’t have a whole lot to do with that. But it is good to see that you recognise that these factors can place an extra strain on resources when one is struggling, just like an unplanned prenancy can.
Reality,
You’ll usually find the people in these countries “breed like rabbits” just to guarantee any child survives. People in these countries don’t take for granted their children will survive, but rather that they won’t.
Can I describe a scenario? Let’s see, my daughter’s friend who just had her 4th child by three different fathers. She’s only 30y/o so no reason to think she’ll stop any time soon. When I volunteered at a CPC I desperately tried to talk young girls, some still in high school, out of getting pregnant. Yes you read that right. Oh then there was the third C section on the 18y/o having her third baby.
As I said Reality, human nature and logic are two different things. These young women had access to birth control, we certainly have it in our community. yet continued to have babies. Maybe because they wanted to? I would often see where they would continue to have multiple children by completely useless losers who were also fertilizing other women, which meant poverty and dependency, but that’s what the taxpayer is for.
My sister in law, shocked by this, asked me why in this day and age, when women have opportunities they never dreamed of, are these young women trapping themselves into lives of welfare dependency and poverty? I wish I had an answer. If it was birth control pills, I’d hand them out myself.
I’m pointing out that people can face difficult financial circumstances for any number of reasons, it isn’t limited to “unwanted” babies.
why in this day and age, when women have opportunities they never dreamed of, are these young women trapping themselves into lives of welfare dependency and poverty? – they vote republican? :-)
I’m pointing out that people can face difficult financial circumstances for any number of reasons, it isn’t limited to “unwanted” babies. – I get that. It doesn’t exclude unwanted prenancies being one of those reasons though.
Reality,
No, these gals don’t generally vote Republican. I remember one young mother gushing on the joys of the welfare state and how would she ever manage without it. Well, maybe you wouldn’t produce children you can’t support for starters? Maybe lover boy would have to cough up support and be less inclined to fertilize you and other women if he had to work two or three jobs to support the kids?
I’ll bet they don’t generally vote. Period. ;-)
Pity they can’t see what their lives will be like in 20-30 years time.
Still doesn’t preclude the likely potential of b/c and abortion to have prevented increased poverty in general.
“That was very noble of Walmart but it proves what? – asking non-starving employees to donate food for starving employees is noble? How about paying a liveable wage. (It was just an aside anyway, that’s why I put it in brackets. ) ”
Its a good thing you never became an economist “reality.” This discussion was had here many times. The term “liveable wage” is an oxymoron due to the effects of inflation Sherlock. Read up on this before opining ;)
“I’m pointing out that people can face difficult financial circumstances for any number of reasons, it isn’t limited to “unwanted” babies. – I get that. It doesn’t exclude unwanted prenancies being one of those reasons though.”
So in your world “reality” there is nothing wrong with irresponsible intercourse that LEADS to a pregnancy but easier to label this pregnancy as unwanted. It seems that to this day you have no understanding of cause and effect and the underlying issues that need to be considered in this discussion. Truly disappointing…
All this reduction of poverty talk makes me wonder if some of the possible causes may be the following:
1) high school drop-out rate or not pursuing further education,
2) easy money in unending government assistance,
Education is the key to success in today’s global economy and high school education by itself is now meaningless.
Okay after reading this discussion about abortion and contraception’s relationships to poverty I have to add a few of my own opinions:
For one thing, it’s a very dangerous thing to begin to suggest that either thing is useful in reducing poverty. Dangerous because that idea seems to suggest that abortion and/or contraception should be promoted in some way to poor women (in other words, that poor women should be discouraged from having children.) I noticed some people on the pro-choice side have been rebranding themselves as activists for “reproductive justice.” Well, to me, the real reproductive injustices are any official or unofficial campaigns or activities that tell a certain demographic of women they can’t or shouldn’t reproduce.
Also, when people talk about “countries where people breed like rabbits”- maybe I’m being oversensitive or trying to read too much into terminology. But as a woman of color and an immigrant something really disturbs me about non-Western women being compared to breeding animals, even in a figure of speech like this. Again, I admit I could be going overboard with that, but it still bothers me.
Trying to discourage particular demographics of women (poor, minority, from non-Western countries) from having children is not going to solve poverty or even come close to helping reduce it.
It just really upsets me whenever I hear human lives being treated by society in general as dollar amounts, whether on a large scale (population control rhetoric, “more children, more poverty” arguments, etc) or a small scale (people arguing that individual women “should” abort if they can’t afford a child, etc). I firmly believe there are no such things as “population crises.” Only crises of resources being mishandled by those in positions of power and privilege.
Its a good thing you never became an economist “reality.” This discussion was had here many times. The term “liveable wage” is an oxymoron due to the effects of inflation Sherlock. – possibly, the same could apparently be said of you “thomas r.”. Ever heard of the term “indexation” Watson.
So in your world “reality” there is nothing wrong with irresponsible intercourse that LEADS to a pregnancy but easier to label this pregnancy as unwanted. – you think that unwanted pregnancies are only brought about by irresponsible intercourse “thomas r.”? How shallow. It seems that to this day you have no understanding of cause and effect and the underlying issues that need to be considered in this discussion. Truly disappointing…
Padma, I spoke of people breeding like rabbits, not of women being like breeding animals. The men are as involved in and subject to the cultural and other factors which have driven the creation of large families in what are referred to as third world countries.
Only crises of resources being mishandled by those in positions of power and privilege. – so, so true.
@Reality thanks for clarifying, I said in my OP as well I may have taken it wrong.
No problem Padma, I understood where you were coming from.
From what I have read over time, I don’t think the folk I stated ‘breed like rabbits’ have that as their prime intention.
My understanding is that they have many children because of high mortality rates and the desire to have enough children such that the parents can be supported in their dotage (if they live that long).
The historic lack of any real birth control also has an impact of course.
From the work conducted by various aid agencies it would appear feasible that better healthcare – lowering the mortality rate - and birth control – reducing the number of offspring – have a combined effect of reducing poverty levels.
“reality:”
“Applying a cost-of-living escalation COLA clause to a stream of periodic payments protects the real value of those payments and effectively transfers the risk of inflation from the payee to the payor, who must pay more each year to reflect the increases in prices. Thus, inflation indexation is often applied to pension payments, rents and other situations which are not subject to regular re-pricing in the market.”
So would you be willing to see Walmart raise the prices of their products by about double (again) to come up with your definition of “liveable wage?” Target has already done it and you want to guess how is that working out for their bottom line Sherlock…
The fact that you think a modest wage increase would lead to a doubling of shelf prices is an indicator of your level of economic acumen “thomas r.”
Define “modest” wannabe bernanke “reality” – 50 cents, 75 or what and then figure in the annual increase in inflation, the increases in costs demanded by Walmart suppliers annually and all other overhead and finally the demand for their products and see where that leaves your “liveable wage” mumbling.
Walmart is a retailer that services the poor, a store for those below the poverty line so to speak. The “modest” increase in wages will be passed unto the consumer as its always done. So in reality “reality” your economics Is not helping those in poverty but further pushing them from affordability. And the employees will not see any difference in those increases either eaten already up by inflation. I honestly think its you that has no understanding how all this works and the only thing you are interested in is feeding a false sense of “liveable wage” nonsense…
I see you do recognise that a modest wage increase wouldn’t be responsible for a doubling of the shelf price. That’s good to know “thomas r.”
Have you looked at the ‘increase in costs demanded by suppliers’? Really? You do know how walmart operates don’t you? Squeezing suppliers.
You are correct to an extent though, most of the stuff they sell comes from places like china where workers are now demanding liveable wages.
So rather than western nations’ wages being depressed to the exploited nations’ wage levels, the opposite is occuring, which can only be good.
Walmart is a retailer that creates more poor.
Do you earn more per hour than a walmart worker? If so why? Shouldn’t you be happy with a similar wage? You could take less for what you do or charge less for it or whatever, then go shop at walmart.
What you call ‘a false sense of liveable wage nonsense’ is gop code for ‘keep the poor dirt poor.
Thomas places like Costco have managed to have wages that are “liveable” if not incredible, and have maintained their profit margins and managed to do well. And, it helps the country because, in general, we don’t have to subsidize Costco employees with governmental assistance so they can feed themselves, have healthcare, and have a place to live and a way to get to work. People have to eat, they have to live somewhere, and they have to have access to healthcare. Those things are not optional. If people are unable to provide themselves these things with a full-time job, they are either going to subsidized by the rest of us or turn to crime. It’s not an optional thing. I think it’s nonsensical that you think a place like Wal-Mart, that has a HUGE profit margin and the “higher ups” make very, very good money, cannot afford to raise their wages enough that the rest of us don’t have to subsidize their employees so they can afford necessities. Basically, you’re approving of corporate welfare. You for some reason are okay with the government subsidizing full time corporate employees so the corporation can have more money for the people at the top. I don’t know what fiscal ideology that is, but it’s certainly not small government.
Not everyone can be an engineer or a CEO. I’m sorry, it’s not possible. Some people are not cut out for college, not everyone is capable of or has access to “good jobs”. We’re always going to have ditch diggers. There are a limited amount of jobs that pay well, and if every single person got a college degree, we’d still have people at the bottom. A college degree decreases in value the more people who have it, that’s basic common sense. Menial and low paying jobs don’t go away if everyone went to college, they still need to be done, and the only thing that would change is that people with college degrees would have to do them instead.
It used to be possible to obtain an entry level job at a factory or similar blue collar work directly after high school (or even if you didn’t finish) and support your family on one income. Now, it’s not to the same extent at all, due to outsourcing, the shrinking pool of unskilled labor because of technology, and other factors. That’s not even debatable. It’s a real problem, and hand-waving it isn’t going to make it go away. Minimum wage hasn’t even kept up with inflation, and compared to previous decades it’s lower than it ever has been compared to the value of a dollar. This is unsustainable. People simply have to be able to provide themselves with the basics through work. It’s not an option, and an unfed, underpaid populace causes more problems than just being on public assistance.
Conservatives complain non-stop about bloated social programs. Okay, that’s a valid complaint. So how in the world are you okay with companies that make massive profits basically forcing their FULL-TIME employees on public assistance? MOST public assistance that doesn’t go to the elderly or disabled goes to the WORKING poor. Not people who are lazing about and want to live off the state. People who work, often full-time. How can you not see this?
And Wal-Mart isn’t a place “for the poor”. Besides the fact that they create more people on public assistance, their business model is designed to put other companies that sell similar things out of business so everyone in a community, rich and poor, have less options.
Since they are so big, they can afford to have one store operate at a loss for a while, even for several years. So what they do is move into an area, sell their stuff at a loss until the competition is out of business (even rich or well-off people tend to buy things cheaper if it’s convenient, wealthy people don’t stay wealthy by wasting money). Once the competition is out of business, they raise their prices so they are operating at a profit again, and since there’s no competition in the area anymore, they can recoup their lost profits quickly. Some communities have chosen to not allow Wal-Mart to operate within their city or county limits because of the way that it destroys small business. There are similar problems with other big chains like that as well, but since other chains aren’t as massive as Wal-Mart, it happens to a lesser extent.
Now I don’t blame Wal-Mart for doing what they do, really. They are operating within the law. It’s not nice and taking the local charm and ruining entrepreneurship for people who wish to start many kinds of small businesses, but that’s capitalism, capitalism never claimed to be selfless or community based. I DO blame Wal-Mart for making their store the only game in town, and then underpaying their workers so they are basically forced on public assistance and charity. THAT should be illegal or penalized in some ways. It’s a terrible policy to make the only jobs available to some people incapable of supporting people who have little other option.
Oh, and it’s beyond ludicrous to think that a place like Wal-Mart, that can deliberately operate at an overall loss for several years per store, because they have such a big profit margin, can’t afford to pay their employees enough to support themselves in a reasonable manner. Honestly I think it might be good policy to decide minimum wage regionally (federally enforced) instead of one blanket minimum federally. Different places have different costs of living. I think it’s reasonable to expect a large corporation to pay their employees enough to provide basics for a family of four, depending on cost of living in that area. That won’t eat their profits, they don’t even have to increase their prices much if anything.
Do you earn more per hour than a walmart worker? If so why? Shouldn’t you be happy with a similar wage?
You know “reality” I have never demanded a “liveable wage” based on my pretty face. I immigrated to this great nation at age 14 and from day one concentrated on busting my rear end academically and working all sorts of minimum wage jobs while in school. I never did expect anything but what the market had valued me as an educated/bilingual to contribute to an organization I wanted to join. “Liveable wage” in my mind is not to be given just because and only in your world people get paid for putting one foot in front of the other.
Just remember that these words are coming from an immigrant raised by a single mother.
“Thomas places like Costco have managed to have wages that are “liveable” if not incredible, and have maintained their profit margins and managed to do well.”
Jack, Costco is doing well because in addition to prices, the chain charges an annual membership fee. Costco prices also recently went up (we have been members 10 years). Walmart cannot compete with Costco because it serves an entirely dfifferent segment of the population.
Thomas, for once can you answer the actual issues I raised in my comment?
1. College degrees depreciate in value the more people that have them. Everyone cannot be educated and have access to those type of jobs, it is unworkable and impossible.
2. If people cannot meet their basic needs with full time work they end up subsidizing their income in some way. This can either be through the government, charity, or crime. I prefer they meet their needs through employment.
3. It’s a form of corporate welfare to allow companies to pay their employees low enough to need public assistance. We are subsidizing those companies and their higher ups. This is more “big government”, because it means bloated social programs and more taxes.
4. There’s a serious lack of blue collar work now. Blue collar factory work, which used to support the masses, is basically gone. These people have to have basics, and I rather they have access to work to provide them.
5. The minimum wage is less than it ever has been compared to the value of the dollar. It’s seriously annoying you keep crowing about how awesome you are, when you had access to education when college degrees were worth more and school was much, much cheaper, and minimum wage was worth more. STOP trying to compare the climate of twenty years ago to what’s going on today, it’s completely different.
6. Costco and Wal-Mart DO serve similar populations. But it’s irrelevant. The fact is that Wal-Mart could reduce their profits by one percent, which would make their profits similar to other corporations, and afford to pay their workers a few thousand more a year. That’s EVERY worker, even ones that make more, so if you concentrated the pay raises to those who desperately need it the difference would be more dramatic. This is all without raising their prices at all, btw. If they slightly raised prices the difference could be even more dramatic.
6. When in the world did I become more fiscally conservative than all of you??? I believe that it’s best if people work, and are not forced to rely on public assistance. You’re fine with publicly funded companies profits. You’re a neo-con, not a fiscal conservative. I’d even call you a corporatist.
I feel like some people on this website would have fought against child labor laws and things like that. Seriously.
I am not crowing how awesome I am Jack. My response called for discussing me due to “reality’s” very personal question directed at me, as below:
“Do you earn more per hour than a walmart worker? If so why? Shouldn’t you be happy with a similar wage?”
Do you see that “reality” attempted to shame me and nothing more? I wanted to be honest in my response to him about how I arrived at “earning more than a Walmart employee.”
Hope this clarifies it for you.
You may want to consider is that degrees never depreciate in value. Where was America where the rest of the world was concentrating on the global economy? How did America prepare its high-schooler for challenges that came with that? Did any individual person think beyond their nose in that regard? Education lasts a lifetime and there is no way anyone can minimize that. People of course can do whatever they want with their lives. Can you hear me talk about taking the future into one’s own hands. Well, whatever, its always the society’s fault anyway, isn’t it. How come then certain segments of the population are continually employed and certain segments constantly complain. Perhaps education has something to do with it, yes?
“Costco and Wal-Mart DO serve similar populations. But it’s irrelevant. The fact is that Wal-Mart could reduce their profits by one percent, which would make their profits similar to other corporations, and afford to pay their workers a few thousand more a year.”
Jack, if a Walmart employee is unhappy they can always apply to Target or Menards or Costco or anywhere else. Nothing keeps (forces to stay) any employee at Walmart or does it?
No, Thomas. College degrees decrease in employment and monetary value the more people who have them.
Imagine that 40% of the population had a degree in Psychology and was licensed for clinical work. Do you think that your compensation would be anywhere near what it is now? Do you think you would be worth as much to an employer if you were so easily replaceable? Of course you wouldn’t. The market would be flooded with people exactly like you, and your skills would be correspondingly worth less. This is what is currently happening in many, many jobs that used to pay well. Because so many people are getting degrees, the degrees are becoming what high school degrees used to be. Getting everyone college educated isn’t fixing what the issue is. The menial and low paying jobs will always exist, the only difference is that we’re getting to the point where you can’t even become shift manager at McDonald’s without a degree.
Thomas, I already explained how Wal-Mart’s business model is precluding people from finding similar work. And the same issue exists everywhere that doesn’t pay enough for people to meet basic needs. Like I said, hand waving isn’t fixing this. Republican party lines isn’t fixing this.
And those jobs at Costco, Target, etc are already in higher demand because they pay better. You can’t just “get one”.
If Wal-Mart wants to be the lowest common denominator, we need to require them to pay enough so that we aren’t supporting their full-time workers. Same for McDonald’s and Burger King, other jobs that pay minimum. There’s really no way that we can continue subsidizing their greed.
“And those jobs at Costco, Target, etc are already in higher demand because they pay better. You can’t just “get one”. ”
I don’t know if you realized this but you just proved my point from the last comment. What makes these jobs higher demand and more competitive and again maintaining some employees at Walmart as their only option?
I’m not continuing the conversation until you answer the excellent, numbered points I made in my 3:52pm comment. It’s too frustrating for me to have you ignore and repeat yourself.
No matter why you say, Thomas, the fact remains we will always and forever have people at the bottom doing menial work who are easily replaceable. Our choices are to require these people to be paid enough to meet their basic needs, or continue adding billions of dollars to social programs, or let theme commit crime or starve. There are not any other options. That is reality, whether you want to admit it or not.
I will always believe in education Jack no matter how saturated the work-force may be with a particular field, education can always be supplemented with certificates and such to distinguish oneself from anyone else. Psychology, which you cited as an example, is actually one of those fields that is constantly growing and thus providing opportunities for constant education that may make one stand out among the candidates. So having a degree is not truly a moot point when you consider the ongoing advancements in any field that require ongoing catching up.
Hey even blue collar employees swallow opportunities for as many certificates as possible because that means standing out and better job opportunities, yes? Discounting the value of ongoing education keeps some in the very place you and “reality” lament about.
Those points Jack are not relevant to me. What is relevant to me is a person’s desire to take charge of their future, consider their options and pursue the type of education and preparation that is required to reach their goal. Opportunities for that are everywhere. If a person chooses to stop at high school its their choice. Anyway, aren’t the trade jobs saturated as well? What does it take to move up in the trades? EDUCATION…
Thomas…
THAT IS THE POINT!!!!!!
Not everyone can move up. Some people will always be at the bottom. That’s life, and it’s perfectly fair. The fact remains that the people at the bottom still have to have basics. It’s indisputable, unless you want our country to look like Brazil. Now, I want the people at the bottom to be able to provide the basics through work. I have no idea what you want. But you cannot deny reality. Reality is there is always going to be people at the bottom who have to eat and have shelter. Indisputable.
This is why I can’t stand the current incarnation of the GOP. It’s not a fiscally conservative philosophy in any way, shape or form.
Yes they can move up by constant education in their respective fields. Even a Walmart cashier is not destined to remain one forever, unless they CHOOSE TO.
Thomas, we are not talking about individuals, we are talking about as a whole. As a whole, there are always going to be people at the bottom. Answer the actual points instead of deflecting.
“Reality is there is always going to be people at the bottom who have to eat and have shelter. Indisputable.”
And our society remembers these individuals. We are not a caste system here Jack, moving up is always possible.
Everyone starts out at the bottom. So what happends next?
Are you literally incapable of looking at things on a macro level Thomas?
Our country’s economic system is quite literally falling apart, and it’s the fault of both the Dems wanting to throw more and more money into social programs and the GOP insisting on subsidizing corporate employees so they can max their profits. There’s nothing fiscally conservative about allowing companies to bleed social programs because they don’t pay enough for people to provide basics.
Economics go up and down, sometimes more down and for longer periods as we have now. I am not going to argue fault but will ask you this: what does it take for anyone individual to not only survive BUT thrive under any economic conditions? My children know the answer to this question Jack.
Again, we are not talking about individuals, and haven’t been this whole time.
I’m done with the conversation unless someone will actually answer the points (that are completely true and backed by fact) and talk about the system as a whole.
There are some things that cannot be blamed on the system Jack. I see you are intent on blaming the system so, yes, its best we are both done. My fingers are fatigued anyway. Have a great weekend in your new adobe :)
Thomas I’m almost literally tearing my hair out with frustration.
I’m not “blaming the system” for any individual’s failure or success. There are many factors in someone succeeding or failing, some of those are within the individual’s control and some are not. That is NOT what I have been talking about, at all.
I am speaking of the issues with the system as a whole. I honestly don’t give a darn one way or another if someone wants to just work flipping burgers or digging ditches for the rest of their life. Those jobs need to be done just as much as any other job. We’ll always require a working class. I do think that any full-time working individual should be able to support themselves on full-time wages. The problem with our system is we’ve created an unsustainable Ponzi scheme with (in part) the way we allow companies to underpay their employees, requiring the full-time employees to be on public assistance to get basic needs (not wants, I don’t care if anyone has a nice tv or owns a car that’s not a beater), while we give the corporations tax breaks and other subsidies. This is unsustainable. It’s not even debatable that it’s unsustainable. Our current educational climate is the same way, even if you ignore the unpleasant but true fact that some people are just too dumb for college, our unprecedented level of people seeking and obtaining higher education is reducing the value of college degrees, which is lowering wages in many career fields, as well as creating higher job turnover and other issues. Now, I don’t think there’s much we can do about that, but we can put the brakes on this stupid practice of subsidizing full time employees of corporations that underpay these employees and rake in massive profits, all while paying historically low taxes and obtaining subsidies or tax breaks in many cases.
If we’re going to live in a capitalist society, we need to stop creating a corporatist one. This has been going on forever, it’s only getting worse. We can’t reduce our federal debt and balance our yearly budgets if we’re pouring massive amounts into social programs that have to support working individuals! That’s not going to keep our economy running.
I don’t understand Republicans anymore. You guys SHOULD be on my side on this. Do you like how much we have to pay out to the working poor? It’s unnecessary and costs a LOT more than requiring the employers to pay reasonable wages. I don’t understand how a supposedly fiscally conservative party can justifying doing things in the most big government, bloated bureaucratic way possible. Like I say with the healthcare stuff, I don’t understand why the GOP wants to do things as expensive and government heavy as possible. That’s like the opposite of what Goldwater Republicans would have done, you guys probably wouldn’t even let him in the party anymore! Like I said, I don’t know when I became more fiscally conservative on this particular issue than the GOP, but I’m flabbergasted that no one sees an issue with our absolutely unsustainable system. And again I am not speaking of individuals and their capacity for success or failure. I am talking on a macro level here. It’s not working, and something needs to happen because we spend more on the working poor every year because minimum and low wages are not keeping up with inflation. It’s a historical low.
Am I taking crazy pills here or something? Does anyone see what my concern is here?
You have a nice weekend too Thomas! I’m going to go to the freezing northern Pacific coast this Sunday afternoon, lol, it will be quite a change from the south Atlantic!
Thomas I’ve been thinking and I think you must just fundamentally misunderstand me as a person. I don’t care about “success”, and I don’t care about having extra money or nice things, and I don’t really care about being “happy”. I am okay with being a low class loser for the rest of my life, I have a new job as a mechanic and it pays decent and I’m fine with that. And I feel the same about other people. They can try to be successful if they want, but they’ll always be a portion like me that will remain at the bottom for whatever reason, and that’s fine. I don’t think everyone needs to be successful, wealthy, or whatever. All I really care about, with the things that I bring up in regards to systemic issues, is that everyone has access to the minimum basics of living without bankrupting the country or turning to illegitimate means to acquire them. This means food, water, shelter, electricity, cheap clothing, healthcare, and things like that, you can’t live without them. It makes much more sense to ensure that a full time worker in whatever job, low skilled or not, can provide these things for their family instead of the government supporting them or overburdening charities (which should only be required for those who cannot find full time work or are unable to work, like the disabled or elderly). The way we do things now, in regards to minimum wages and healthcare, is not only hurting those who rely on them, it’s costing us much, much more in the long run and even the short term.
In a way I think you’re much more idealistic than I am. People think those who tend more left are the idealists, but this weird brand of corporatism and neo-conservative beliefs is much more naive. It’s simply not possible for everyone to be at the top. I look at things as a whole, you’re looking at one individual at a time saying “do this, and you’ll be successful”. That doesn’t work to fix the systemic issues, and everyone cannot be at the top anyway. It’s fine to be working class, the damn country is built on the back of laborers for goodness sake. What’s not fine is the issues with the way we do things which is simultaneously leaving people in the lurch and slowly overburdening our social system AND charities.
Hi Jack.
Congratulations on your move, your new job, and your new life.
I wish you every success.
Thanks Mary. I tried to find work as a mechanic when I lived in my previous state, but there were too many young men with the same skills I have and too hard to get into a job. But up here I got this job after looking just a couple weeks. It’s the best I’ve ever been paid too, and has benefits (first time I’ve had health insurance in my life except for a couple months when I was younger) and good hours (8am to 4pm). And my ex’s aunt is watching my daughter for free all day and picking up my son from school and watching him for free until I get off work too. It’s pretty much awesome. I should have moved up here forever ago but I couldn’t take my kids away from their mother, thankfully she decided to go to school up here to get her RN.
Jack: “In a way I think you’re much more idealistic than I am. People think those who tend more left are the idealists, but this weird brand of corporatism and neo-conservative beliefs is much more naive.”
So you think that my response to one of your assertions regarding education is too idealistic and naive. I contended in my January 24, 2014 at 4:56 pm comment that:
Thomas R: “… What is relevant to me is a person’s desire to take charge of their future, consider their options and pursue the type of education and preparation that is required to reach their goal.”
How is this type of focus too idealistic and naive in the USA in 2014? Please do tell.