PDA

View Full Version : All Americans, read this right now



SicN Twisted
11-29-2004, 12:17 AM
I figure I'd post a more comprehensive collection of the same statistics I posted in my argument with Betty. Any American that believes that our system of small government and social conservatism works, you just gotta read this.

INCOME INEQUALITY
As mentioned earlier, America has the greatest inequality of income and wealth in the industrialized world:

Inequality of income (0 = most equal society, 100 = the least equal):

United States 99
Canada 83
Netherlands 82
Switzerland 79
United Kingdom 78
Germany 66
Norway 60
Sweden 60

Average CEO's pay as a multiple of an average
worker's pay:

United States 17.5 (More)
United Kingdom 12.4
Japan 11.6
Canada 9.6
France 8.9
Germany 6.5

Percent of Union Membership in Workforce:

Sweden 85.3%
United Kingdom 41.5
Canada 34.6
Germany 33.8
Japan 26.8
Netherlands 25.0
United States 16.4

Size of Middle Class (More):

Japan 90.0%
Sweden 79.0
Norway 73.4
Germany 70.1
Switzerland 67.2
Netherlands 62.5
Canada 58.5
United Kingdom 58.5
United States 53.7

Poverty level (More):

United States 17.1%
Canada 12.6
United Kingdom 9.7
Switzerland 8.5
Germany 5.6
Sweden 5.3
Norway 5.2

Children under the poverty level:

United States 22.4%
Canada 15.5
United Kingdom 9.3
Switzerland 7.8
Sweden 5.0
Germany 4.9
Norway 4.8

Deaths from malnutrition (per million):

Men Women
United States 7 13
France 4 9
Canada 5 7
Japan 2 1
United Kingdom 1 2
Norway 0 1


HEALTH CARE

Health Care Expenditures (percent of GDP)4

United States 13.4%
Canada 10.0
Finland 9.1
Sweden 8.6
Germany 8.4
Netherlands 8.4
Norway 7.6
Japan 6.8
United Kingdom 6.6
Denmark 6.5



Life Expectancy (years):

Men Women
Japan 76.2 82.5
France 72.9 81.3
Switzerland 74.1 81.3
Netherlands 73.7 80.5
Sweden 74.2 80.4
Canada 73.4 80.3
Norway 73.1 79.7
Germany 72.6 79.2
Finland 70.7 78.8
United States 71.6 78.6
United Kingdom 72.7 78.2
Denmark 72.2 77.9

Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births):

United States 10.4
United Kingdom 9.4
Germany 8.5
Denmark 8.1
Canada 7.9
Norway 7.9
Netherlands 7.8
Switzerland 6.8
Finland 5.9
Sweden 5.9
Japan 5.0


Death rate of 15-to-24 year olds (per community of 200,000 per year):

United States 203
Switzerland 175
Canada 161
France 156
Finland 154
Norway 128
Germany 122
Denmark 120
United Kingdom 114
Sweden 109
Japan 96
Netherlands 90
Note: the murder rate for the above age group is 48.8 per 200,000. Even subtracting this entirely still puts the U.S. near the top of the list.

Premature Death (years of life lost before the age of 64 per 100 people):

United States 5.8 years
Denmark 4.9
Finland 4.8
Canada 4.5
Germany 4.5
United Kingdom 4.4
Norway 4.3
Switzerland 4.1
Netherlands 4.0
Sweden 3.8
Japan 3.3

Percent of people who believe their health care system needs fundamental change (More):

United States 60%
Sweden 58
United Kingdom 52
Japan 47
Netherlands 46
France 42
Canada 38

SEX


Teen pregnancies per 1,000 teenagers:

United States 98.0
United Kingdom 46.6
Norway 40.2
Canada 38.6
Finland 32.1
Sweden 28.3
Denmark 27.9
Netherlands 12.1
Japan 10.5


CRIME


Annual reports of police brutality (per 100,000 people)

United States 92.5
United Kingdom 6.0
France 0.7

Prisoners (per 1,000 people):

United States 4.2
United Kingdom 1.0
Germany 0.8
Denmark 0.7
Sweden 0.6
Japan 0.4
Netherlands 0.4

Death row inmates:

United States 2,124
Japan 38
Europe and Canada 0

Percent of households with a handgun:

United States 29%
Finland 7
Germany 7
Canada 5
Norway 4
Europe 4
Netherlands 2
United Kingdom 1
Looking at the above statistics, one would think that Europe is soft on crime, while the U.S. approach to law and order is based on no-nonsense deterrence. In reality, Europe is relatively crime-free, and the U.S. has the worst crime rate in the world:

Murders committed with handguns annually:

United States 8,915
Switzerland 53
Sweden 19
Canada 8
United Kingdom 7

Murder rate (per 100,000 people):

United States 8.40
Canada 5.45
Denmark 5.17
Germany 4.20
Norway 1.99
United Kingdom 1.97
Sweden 1.73
Japan 1.20
Finland 0.70

Murder rate for males age 15-24 (per 100,000 people):

United States 24.4
Canada 2.6
Sweden 2.3
Norway 2.3
Finland 2.3
Denmark 2.2
United Kingdom 2.0
Netherlands 1.2
Germany 0.9
Japan 0.5

Rape (per 100,000 people):

United States 37.20
Sweden 15.70
Denmark 11.23
Germany 8.60
Norway 7.87
United Kingdom 7.26
Finland 7.20
Japan 1.40

Armed robbery (per 100,000 people)

United States 221
Canada 94
United Kingdom 63
Sweden 49
Germany 47
Denmark 44
Finland 38
Norway 22
Japan 1

POLLUTION

Travel on public transportation as a percent of all travel:



Average price of a gallon of gas:

Sweden $4.85
Denmark 4.46
United Kingdom 3.56
Germany 3.05
Netherlands 3.02
Japan 3.01
Canada 1.40
United States 1.07

Energy Units of oil burned annually:

United States 791.5
European Community 501.4
Japan 234.3
Germany 108.5
United Kingdom 81.3
Canada 80.4
Netherlands 24.1
Sweden 16.3
Finland 11.1
Norway 9.3
Denmark 9.0

Carbon dioxide released per person per year:

United States 5.8 tons
Canada 4.8
Germany 3.2
United Kingdom 2.9
Japan 2.2
OECD Europe 1.8

Total Carbon Monoxide emitted annually:

United States 60,900 tons
Canada 10,100
Germany 8,926
France 6,198
United Kingdom 5,264
Sweden 1,754
Netherlands 1,229
Norway 649
Switzerland 621


Forests cleared (thousands of cubic yards):

United States 808,421
Canada 379,500
France 95,964
Sweden 84,612
Finland 72,864
Japan 57,272
Norway 14,810
United Kingdom 6,600


Debris inhaled per person per year:

United States 81 pounds
Finland 44
Sweden 44
Europe 26
Netherlands 24
Germany 24
Denmark 20
Norway 15
United Kingdom 11
Japan 2

Government spending on pollution control (percent of GDP):

Japan 1.17%
Netherlands 0.95
Canada 0.89
Germany 0.78
Sweden 0.66
United Kingdom 0.62
United States 0.60
Norway 0.54
Finland 0.52

Municipal waste per person per year (kilograms)5

United States 864 kg.
Canada 632
Japan 394
United Kingdom 353
Germany 331
France 304
Italy 301


WORK AND LEISURE TIME
Note the position of economic powerhouse Germany in the next two lists.

Average hours worked per year:

Japan 2,173
United States 1,890
Sweden 1,808
United Kingdom 1,771
Netherlands 1,756
Finland 1,744
Norway 1,725
Denmark 1,699
Germany 1,668

Average paid vacation per year:

Finland 35.0 days
Germany 30.0
France 25.5
Denmark 25.0
Sweden 25.0
United Kingdom 25.0
Netherlands 24.0
Switzerland 22.0
Norway 21.0
United States 12.0



DEMOCRACY
The U.S. may be the oldest existing democracy in the world, but it is also the weakest, and one of the only democracies where voting is not required by law. It shows:


Average number of national referenda per year:

Switzerland 169
Australia 18
Denmark 11
France 10
Ireland 8
Italy 4
Sweden 3
Norway 1
United Kingdom 1
Canada 0
Finland 0
Germany 0
Japan 0
Netherlands 0
United States 0

The United Nations Human Freedom Index (0 = least freedom, 40 = most freedom. More.):

Sweden 38
Denmark 38
Netherlands 37
Austria 36
Finland 36
France 35
Germany 35
Canada 34
Switzerland 34
Australia 33
United States 33
Japan 32
United Kingdom 32

I took out some less important statistics cause of the character limitation. But I hope you all get the general idea.

BREAK
11-29-2004, 01:29 AM
Why doesn't Betty move to America if she loves it so much?

(Ha ha - get it? You see, Betty is Canadian, and she doesn't espouse most liberal views. Therefore, I'm putting an ironic "twist" on the oft-repeated mantra of American right-wingers: "Why don't you leave America if you hate it so much?" So you see, it's not actually an insult directed towards her at all, but a satirical swipe at the assholes who make such ridiculous statements as those! I love having to explain myself to make sure nobody gets offended.)

Betty
11-29-2004, 02:22 AM
Like me, who is easily offended??? (Hence also a slight swipe at the easily offended... or maybe I'm reading too much into this by being offended? Oh boy...)

But no, I've said I would have no qualms with moving to the US, or else I'd be a hypocrite. Probably will end up doing that someday... I'd enjoy the warmer climate. And I'll probably be able to find a better job. I hear Australia is beautiful too though.

lousyskater
11-29-2004, 11:45 AM
wow america sucks. i was expecting america to top most of the negative lists though.

HornyPope
11-29-2004, 03:03 PM
Dude stats are gay.

RXP
11-29-2004, 03:15 PM
Stats can be used to show anything. For serious.

e.g. just watch a hockey game for an example of how ESPN over analyses shit. And we all know hockey is a euphamism for life.

Moose
11-29-2004, 03:28 PM
so wait how many of you live in america?

i do

So how many of u hate america that live in it?

How many of u hate it that dont live in it?

how many of you believe its the best country in the world?

How many of you believe its the best country in the world but have a love/hate relationship with it?

i believe its the best country in the world, but with obvious flaws we need to fix. but its still the best country in the world to me. and i dont have a problem with betty shes cool, and i think she takes each issue on in a different way, it doesnt matter whether its a liberal or conservative view, she doesnt want to constrict herself to that bullshit.

hereforone
11-29-2004, 03:34 PM
hmmm, I'm glad everyone takes these stat's for the ultimate truth.

I didn't know there was a resident expert on everything that goes on in the world. I find it surprising that someone who comes to these forums had the time, inclination and ability to traverse the globe collecting stats....

A reference to some sort of web site or othere source would help the credibility of the post.

wheelchairman
11-29-2004, 03:46 PM
As mentioned in the beginning, this was posted in another thread, and it had the link.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm

There you go.

sKratch
11-29-2004, 04:30 PM
I don't quite understand some of those percentages... like what are they percents of? And I believe the high infant mortality rate is due to birth at older age.

SicN Twisted
11-29-2004, 05:51 PM
I live in America, and I like alot of things about it and hate alot of things about it. But it's rediculous to say it's the greatest country in the world. There's nothing significant about the US that could possibly make it the greatest country in the world.

Moose
11-29-2004, 07:06 PM
but then i ask, what is the greatest country in the world...or is simply a question that should not be asked because it cannot be answered based on people's different views on econimies and policies...

SicN Twisted
11-29-2004, 07:09 PM
As the stats show, no country has the best in every category. Therefore, there can't be a greatest country in the world. But I'd have to say the Netherlands.

greencows12
11-29-2004, 07:16 PM
Like me, who is easily offended??? (Hence also a slight swipe at the easily offended... or maybe I'm reading too much into this by being offended? Oh boy...)

But no, I've said I would have no qualms with moving to the US, or else I'd be a hypocrite. Probably will end up doing that someday... I'd enjoy the warmer climate. And I'll probably be able to find a better job. I hear Australia is beautiful too though.
Wanna trade places? cause i'll easily move back to canada than stay here and have paranoia about a draft when i'm 18.

Italia311
11-29-2004, 08:34 PM
I'd Say love and hate for the U.S. But if your going to move somewhere cause of the climate...there are a dozen other places I'd rather live. Not everyone in United States is a g00f. I have family there..and I stayed there for a significant amount of time to get used to some of the people. There are some really really stupid people there..but there are also some really really stupid people in Canada...or in any country. Your bound to find dumbasses no matter where u go. And I dont believe the United states is a Great country. There are more good than bad about it. I also think there isnt one great country either. And there never will be.

Betty
11-30-2004, 12:12 AM
That was an incredibly random post.

wheelchairman
11-30-2004, 12:21 AM
I spent 14 years in America. And I now live in Europe. While America is a fine place, it ain't the best country in the world. What on Earth do you base that on?

ThatOneGuy123
11-30-2004, 02:27 AM
YOU ARE THE GAYEST PERSON IN THE WORLD WHO DOES THAT MUCH TALKING ON STATS OMG!!




Patrick Sweesey is your biological dad

wheelchairman
11-30-2004, 03:04 AM
Oh how shocking, another stupid comment from THATONEGUY.

RXP
11-30-2004, 03:39 AM
I spent 14 years in America. And I now live in Europe. While America is a fine place, it ain't the best country in the world. What on Earth do you base that on?

That's subjective. If you find say your love in America or something on a human level then you know. Blah I cant be arsed you explain you know.

Sexy Panda
11-30-2004, 06:26 AM
Well I have to say those statistics (not that I trust that kind of thing much) didn't end up being the America killer I was promised. While the US was kind of bad on most, it definitely wasn't the great satan.

I don't know, maybe coming from Australia which wasn't on the survey (except for 2 questions) it just doesn't have the impact that it would on yanks.

HornyPope
11-30-2004, 09:08 AM
YOU ARE THE GAYEST PERSON IN THE WORLD WHO DOES THAT MUCH TALKING ON STATS OMG!!


Oh how shocking, another stupid comment from THATONEGUY.

I think he nailed it right on the money. Caps lock and ponctuation will help though.


I'll reiterate that stats are gay. If you really want to make a point with the help of numbers, look up the U.N's Human Development Index. At least it's more precise and credible.

Italia311
12-01-2004, 11:34 AM
That was an incredibly random post.


lol.......

Vera
12-01-2004, 12:44 PM
I liked something scared_wolf said on the old BBS:


98% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

wheelchairman
12-01-2004, 01:20 PM
I liked something scared_wolf said on the old BBS:
Guess you didn't read the references in the link did you?

saska de o...
12-01-2004, 01:25 PM
wow... not all.... :) a lot of these are at school risht now :D

Betty
12-01-2004, 01:52 PM
I believe that most stats aren't lies, per se... but they can be twisted in so many ways.

So I wouldn't go as far as saying they are made up or wrong, but merely that they can be manipulated in pretty much any way to suit your case.

Properly expressed, and properly interpreted stats however can be very important tools... otherwise things just get totally random.

Also, a problem with stats, is that to properly interpret them, you need to know a lot about where they came from and how they were calculated (e.g. sample size, description, treatment, etc.), and this usually isn't provided. That's when you have to look to primary sources.

SicN Twisted
12-01-2004, 08:21 PM
It's funny how the CIA sites statistics that Cuba has more poverty then the United States, and they somehow blame Castro for it.

sKratch
12-01-2004, 09:15 PM
I don't quite see the irony there... I'm afraid it's obvious and I'm reading it wrong.

nieh
12-01-2004, 10:40 PM
Percent of Union Membership in Workforce:

Sweden 85.3%
United Kingdom 41.5
Canada 34.6
Germany 33.8
Japan 26.8
Netherlands 25.0
United States 16.4

Average price of a gallon of gas:

Sweden $4.85
Denmark 4.46
United Kingdom 3.56
Germany 3.05
Netherlands 3.02
Japan 3.01
Canada 1.40
United States 1.07

Energy Units of oil burned annually:

United States 791.5
European Community 501.4
Japan 234.3
Germany 108.5
United Kingdom 81.3
Canada 80.4
Netherlands 24.1
Sweden 16.3
Finland 11.1
Norway 9.3
Denmark 9.0

Forests cleared (thousands of cubic yards):

United States 808,421
Canada 379,500
France 95,964
Sweden 84,612
Finland 72,864
Japan 57,272
Norway 14,810
United Kingdom 6,600


The union thing is not necesarilly a bad thing...unions are no longer necesary on a large scale in this country like they were years ago. A large portion of unions are just as corrupt and stupid as the corporations they're supposed to be protecting us from

In regards to the oil thing...our gas in cheaper, therefore we burn more oil energy. Since gas prices have gone up, I can almost guarantee you the oil energy we burn has gone down because people don't want to spend so much.

For the forests cleared, how much larger are we than most of those countries? Also, that's kind of outdated. I believe over the last 10 years we've actually planted and re-grown more forests than we've cut down (if I'm not mistaken?)

Also, why is it that the stats seem to compare us to random countries depending on the stat? Why doesn't it include the same countries on every statistic?

SicN Twisted
12-01-2004, 10:50 PM
As to the forests cleared, the statistics are all taken per capita, so size is irrelevent.

Whether or not unions or corrupt as nothing to do with the fact that low union membership corelates to inequality.

Gas prices are so low because many more Americans drive cars, which is on many different levels bad for the environment.

The stats don't all use the same countries because they represent the rich nations of the world, and couldn't display every single one of them. A handful are taken out just to show generally even examples of lowest to highest in everything..................

Betty
12-01-2004, 11:00 PM
Sic, it seems maybe you have missed the point regarding forests and oil?

Being that these things would be quite a bit different now than in 1991?

I think that was the point...

SicN Twisted
12-01-2004, 11:18 PM
The world is gradually getting more environmentalist, but we still have a higher percentage of forests cleared then most other countries in the survey.

All I can say about the oil thing is that we still have the highest oil expendature. Our pipeline through Afganistan and ousting of the guy who controlled alot of oil are only gonna drive gas prices even lower, and continue our upward drive in oil expence. Things are not changing drastically for the better or worst - I wouldn't post those stats if they weren't obviously still generally the same. The only major difference is that European basketball teams are getting a whole lot better.

Betty
12-01-2004, 11:26 PM
Yeah, I don't know what's actually true or not, just wanted to make sure you were addressing the proper issues...

HornyPope
12-02-2004, 12:11 AM
You guys heard the news about the country-wide union protests in Italy today? It's definatly something that will never happen in the U.S.. Why? Because the American workers have a significantly lower power in face of their employers. As a consequance, they have less leverage to negotiate salaries, benifits etc... Now, one can make the argument--and American neo-liberals do exactly that--that less worker protests and other measures that put production at risk equals to less efficiancy and higher salaries which in turn results in less profits for the owners which in turn results for higher market prices, which in turn hurts the consumer. While it's true that the consumer benifts from lower market prices, there is no doubt in mind that he would benefit even further had he had a larger purchase power (which is acquired due to higher salary). Economic studies will prove me right, but I do not care to argue this particular point any further because economics are gay.

So anywhoo, if you guys really want to know, this is probably the root (albeit only the glimpse thereof) of the differences between American and European economic policies.

Vera
12-02-2004, 04:38 AM
Guess you didn't read the references in the link did you?
I did, I was just reminded of the thing he said and considered to be amusing and ironic.

I didn't want to take part in the debate as I quite don't give a crap.

But I do think Finns need to be more environmental. We're always going on about our beautiful nature but it won't stay beautiful if we don't think more green.

I absolutely have to make my dad recycle.

RXP
12-02-2004, 05:28 AM
While it's true that the consumer benifts from lower market prices, there is no doubt in mind that he would benefit even further had he had a larger purchase power (which is acquired due to higher salary). Economic studies will prove me right, but I do not care to argue this particular point any further because economics are gay.



Do they? Inflation results, lower income consumers have a higher MPC so they spend more causing inflation. Inflation is bad mmmkay?

wheelchairman
12-02-2004, 06:49 AM
For the forests cleared, how much larger are we than most of those countries? Also, that's kind of outdated. I believe over the last 10 years we've actually planted and re-grown more forests than we've cut down (if I'm not mistaken?)

Driving through Oregon last summer, I could see obvious signs of clear cutting.

nieh
12-02-2004, 07:32 AM
"Enormous tracts of trees were destroyed by settlers in this country, without being replanted. Today, reforestation is a critical component of the U.S. lumber industry. Furthermore, with increasingly sophisticated measuring methods, the more sure we are about the rapidly increasing rate of forest growth in the continental United States. These are the current facts: In 1952, the U.S. had 664 million acres of forest land. In 1987 the number had climbed to 731 million acres, according to the most recent numbers available in the U.S. Statistical Abstract, 1993-1994 edition.

"According to the U.S. Forest Service, annual timber growth in the U.S. now exceeds harvest by 37 percent. Annual growth has exceeded harvest every year since 1952. In 1992, just 384,000 acres -- six-tenths of 1 percent of the National Forest land open to harvesting -- were actually harvested. As a result of growth steadily exceeding harvests, the number of wooded acres in the U.S. has grown 20 percent in the past twenty years. The average annual wooded growth in the U.S. today is an amazing three times what it was in 1920. In Vermont, for example, the area covered by forests has increased from 35 percent a hundred years ago to about 76 percent today." -- Joseph Bast, Peter Hill and Richard Rue, Eco-Sanity: A Common Sense Guide to Environmentalism (Madison Books: 1994), p. 23."

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-response.html from here

"More wood is grown each year in the United States than is harvested. This has been true for at least 50 years."

from here http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/naturalresources/components/DD7274-c1-cb.html

Not all of the statistics are per capita (not the forest one anyway). It tells you before each stat "per this many people" if it is. In 1992 there was a total (not per capita) amount of 384,000 acres of forests harvested, which is lower than the amount on your stat list (from whatever year it was written up, 1991 the site says?)

While I'm sure there are places that are being clear cut, but there's enough new trees being planted to make up for that. That's not to say that the de-forestation in those particular areas isn't bad, it causes flooding and landslides and all, but as a whole, we're gaining more trees than we're losing.

nieh
12-02-2004, 08:06 AM
Whether or not unions or corrupt as nothing to do with the fact that low union membership corelates to inequality.

Gas prices are so low because many more Americans drive cars, which is on many different levels bad for the environment.

The stats don't all use the same countries because they represent the rich nations of the world, and couldn't display every single one of them. A handful are taken out just to show generally even examples of lowest to highest in everything..................

unions promote raises based on longevity, not skill. I know someone that works at shop rite that makes $10/hour pushing carts because the union says he has to get a .50 cent raise every 6 months, and if he doesn't do anything actively wrong, then he can't be fired. He doesn't want to move to another position, he wants to push carts. There's numerous cases where unions give a standard raise per length of time instead of taking into consideration how good the person works. This is based on the idea that, you do a job for 6 months, you'll be better than someone new to it, do the job for 1 year, you'll be better than someone doing it for 6 monts, and so forth. But how good can you get at pushing carts? They promote equality but not fairness. It's basically communism (whether or not you think it's good or bad is up to you, but it's fact. Personally I think it's bad). Unions back in the day were necesarry, but I don't believe they are needed on a large scale anymore.
Semi-related (not the main reason I dislike unions but it's something) my father used to work in retail. He was a store manager in a handful of different department stores (Sears, Woolworths, Caldor, etc.). He was a store manager, not a district manager and he was never the head store manager. He never made more than $40,000 per year as a manager, would you agree that that's a fair amount? He's making $40,000 while the people working the store are making probably about $20,000-25,000 (the sales folks anyway, not so much the cashiers)? I mean, he's in charge of a lot more, and would walk around and help other people with their jobs when he ran out of stuff to do. The people that worked in the store loved him. The union apparently didn't. The union decided to go on strike (which is technically something against the district manager or at the very least the head manager, not my dad's position). When the union went on strike, my father received death threats, he had people try to run him over in the parking lot, he had people damage his car while he was working. Eventually an agreement was reached and that stopped. At Shop Rite, it's set up where for the first 1-2 months you work there, you're not part of the union, then you have to join it. Shop Rite has a tendency to go on strike at least once a year. My brother, when he was about 15-16 got a job there and during his 1-2 month non-union time, the union went on strike. My mom wouldn't let him go into work because people led her to believe he or she would be harmed if he did. I'm not saying that all unions are corrupt and stupid, and I'm not even saying that all people in those particular unions are, but it's really not something that needs to be instated on a national level anymore, because things like this will end up happening more frequently. Also, if everyone starts getting raises because of the unions, eventually that will lead to inflation, so having more money won't mean anything.

iamfromengland
12-02-2004, 08:11 AM
i agree wid break

mr uk man
12-02-2004, 09:25 AM
iamfromengland is a convicted rapist he raped a 10year old :mad:

iamfromengland
12-02-2004, 09:26 AM
shut the fuck up ben your the rapist

mr uk man
12-02-2004, 09:27 AM
rapist he is a rapist lol

iamfromengland
12-02-2004, 09:29 AM
shall we take the mickie outa someone yes/no

mr uk man
12-02-2004, 09:30 AM
yes yes yes yes :cool:

SicN Twisted
12-02-2004, 10:30 AM
The purpose of unions are to represent workers against the state, nothing adequate could really be done on a national level. Also, that longevity thing makes perfect sence. Unskilled laborers aren't meant to get promoted, they're meant to keep their jobs until someone else is hired to take their position, when they most likely take a similar position with another job. Unions aren't for people who are working to pay college tuition or working durring the summer, they're for people who make a living off menial labor and need adequate representation. Raises baised on skill are rediculous in fields of unskilled work. No matter what you think about unions, they give employees job security and better salaries.

About the statistics, I guess you're right that we're planting forests now, I can find nothing to dispute it. I agree with doing this, and am glad it's occuring.

HornyPope
12-02-2004, 03:35 PM
Do they? Inflation results, lower income consumers have a higher MPC so they spend more causing inflation. Inflation is bad mmmkay?

Gay argument. Not biting.

nieh
12-02-2004, 03:58 PM
The purpose of unions are to represent workers against the state, nothing adequate could really be done on a national level. Also, that longevity thing makes perfect sence. Unskilled laborers aren't meant to get promoted, they're meant to keep their jobs until someone else is hired to take their position, when they most likely take a similar position with another job. Unions aren't for people who are working to pay college tuition or working durring the summer, they're for people who make a living off menial labor and need adequate representation. Raises baised on skill are rediculous in fields of unskilled work. No matter what you think about unions, they give employees job security and better salaries.

About the statistics, I guess you're right that we're planting forests now, I can find nothing to dispute it. I agree with doing this, and am glad it's occuring.

The longevity thing makes sense in certain cases, I agree. But the fact that someone is able to make $10/hr pushing carts (and eventually even more than that) while there's skilled workers making less than that is kind of dumb. You're right that they give certain people job security and better salaries, what I'm saying is that many of those people don't DESERVE better salaries.

Betty
12-02-2004, 04:54 PM
Nieh, you have pretty much the same view on unions as I do, and I've given the same case before, but it doesn't hit home.

I worked at a grocery store and got pretty fucked over by the union. But I won't tell the story again. My dad also worked various managerial positions, and never got any exceptional treatment from the unions. He actually took an assistant manager position recently that meant he would no longer be in the union, which he thought was a bit risky (since he has gotten totally fucked before - but recovered cause people can do that in worst case scenarios), but did it in order to advance, since he really wants his own store again. Cause you can't get that far in the union, at least in that type of business.

I kinda disagree about how it's justified to give pay raises based on seniority for unskilled workers. Because, it's not like these jobs require no skill at all. You can definitely do a much better job than somebody else, and acquire some good skills in that specific area, be they fairly menial. If you work in a factory/retail store/whatever, you totally deserve a pay raise if you do a kickass job. I don't think people who slack off deserve the pay raises no matter how long they are there.

This of course, only applies to the civilized places in the world...

Oh man, damn union debate.

nieh
12-02-2004, 05:01 PM
Because, it's not like these jobs require no skill at all. You can definitely do a much better job than somebody else, and acquire some good skills in that specific area, be they fairly menial.

exactly. Plus, if you work in one of the menial labor positions for the same company for a long enough time, sooner or later you will pick up at least the groundwork for knowledge on how to do the other jobs at the company. Unless you live entirely in your own little world when you're working...but for 4 years without learning anything? That's kind of sad.

Betty
12-02-2004, 05:10 PM
Thinking about it some more... I think the fact that Sic (and others) support unions for unskilled workers can actually hurt them in some ways as they are not encouraged to make something of themselves. First off, they're under the impression they don't need any skills, they are "unskilled". Second they have no motivation to improve themselves because it doesn't make any difference if they do it.

SicN Twisted
12-02-2004, 06:16 PM
There needs to be unskilled workers, and by unskilled I mean jobs that don't require specific training in any area. If everyone was skilled, nobody would do basic labor.

betty, it appears that you think that any workers can master a trait, and use it to make more money. It's kind of like the misconception that anyone can make a good living by going to college - it's simply not true. Our system relies on an entire class of indentured servants, and all unions do is give them the ability to represent themselves.

Betty
12-02-2004, 07:07 PM
I know what you mean by unskilled. But somebody can still be much better at an unskilled job, and master the skills of that unskilled job. And be a reliable worker/employee, etc, etc.

Even if your job consisted of pushing a button, you could still show up at work everyday on time, never screw up the button pushing, follow whatever rules might be at the job, etc. And if there WERE raises to be given, then you would deserve them more than somebody who always shows up to work late, forgets to push the button sometimes, takes long lunches, etc. The latter worker would be protected under the union and it would be very difficult to get them fired.

Betty
12-02-2004, 07:09 PM
Also, allowing them company to fire an undeserving worker would allow them to hire a more deserving worker who is looking for a job and more deserving of one.

SicN Twisted
12-03-2004, 07:00 AM
Unions make it difficult to fire people without just cause. A union can't protect a worker who can't function in the workplace - unions mostly protect workers against random layoffs.

sKratch
12-03-2004, 09:07 AM
Random Post:
My friend/roomate's dad is in a Union. His mother, as well.

Betty
12-03-2004, 12:57 PM
Unions make it difficult to fire people without just cause. A union can't protect a worker who can't function in the workplace - unions mostly protect workers against random layoffs.]

Okay, I am totally not giving you that point, at all.

"Just cause" in this case is like, doing every possible thing wrong, possibly comitting murder.

The example I gave where this guy showed up late all the time, and always forgot to push the button, he couldn't be fired because of that.

There's really only one point that I would give you regarding the usefulness of unions, but I won't point it out, or else that would be very detrimental to my argument.

sherban
12-03-2004, 01:38 PM
guys,lock at my location...i wanna emigrate to Canada cause its easier than U.S. but if ur ar so bothered about the U.tS come o romania and there u will know what S*#T is.

Know why america has most armed robberies ?
Cause in other countries we dont have money to buy food that alone weapons.

nah,just jokeing,we do have money for food. :D

wheelchairman
12-03-2004, 02:14 PM
Now Betty, you are just mentioning personal examples that you've experienced. I can give you my own personal examples in the Union that I am a member of where it has helped student workers. It helps them stop getting cheated from their sick days, it helps them get a fair pay etc etc. And this is in a country with a far more extensive social network, so even here we have a need for a union.

Now of course some unions are corrupt, and some unions don't even help the workers as well.

Although, you've admitted that you don't believe that the working class and the owners of corporations can work in cooperation. That the classes stand in contradiction. What the union does is make it so that the worker has a chance at all against the management, the CEO, whoever it may be. Because otherwise there would be unparalleled exploitation of the workers.

Unnatural Disaster
12-03-2004, 03:09 PM
You said that gas prices are around $1.07 in the united states.....


It's actually more like: between $1.87 - $2.87

Betty
12-04-2004, 11:03 AM
Now Betty, you are just mentioning personal examples that you've experienced. I can give you my own personal examples in the Union that I am a member of where it has helped student workers. It helps them stop getting cheated from their sick days, it helps them get a fair pay etc etc. And this is in a country with a far more extensive social network, so even here we have a need for a union.

Now of course some unions are corrupt, and some unions don't even help the workers as well.

Although, you've admitted that you don't believe that the working class and the owners of corporations can work in cooperation. That the classes stand in contradiction. What the union does is make it so that the worker has a chance at all against the management, the CEO, whoever it may be. Because otherwise there would be unparalleled exploitation of the workers.

Okay, okay... let's say I allow you to have unions for those unskilled factory workers. What about the unions for nurses, for teachers, for retail?

We will play a what do you think is best game...

So, teachers, they have a very strong union (here anyway). It is very difficult for them to get fired. I know I personally have had a lot of pretty bad teachers, some amazing ones, but definitely some bad ones. So, what is more important? To protect the shitty teacher in their job? OR to protect all the students who are supposed to be getting a valuable education from them in a good environment? You let me know about that one, I'm curious.

The same could apply to nurses, who also have a strong union.

Izie
12-04-2004, 05:21 PM
Okay, okay... let's say I allow you to have unions for those unskilled factory workers. What about the unions for nurses, for teachers, for retail?


(jesus on izie's account)

allowing unions for one sector and not for another is retarded. Unions should be atleast national or regional organisations.
Currently it would be better if they were international organisations (thanks to globalisation), because a multinational can just rise it's production in one country while they are striking in another for instance.

Here unions are regional (Flemish and a Walloon division), christian union, socialist union, ... even a fucking liberal union which (liberal used in the classical sense not in the bastardized american way) .
They have over 3 million union members out of a population of 10 million (with an active working population of around 5.5-6 million).

Panzerfaust92
12-07-2004, 06:06 AM
I think America is overall a very favorable country. I usually live there in St. Louis, but I am a foreign exchange student this year in Austria Of course there are many aspects of the country that bother me, but at the same time, there are many aspects that appeal to me. I agree that Americans are for the most part wasteful, selfish, ignorant people who pay no attention to the needs of the environment. I heard from a George Carlin stand up comedy show that all the golf couses in America could be combined to be the size of 2 Rhode Islands and a Delaware. Thats a lot of wasted land. I like most areas of America but some places I don't care for. Those stats are probably mostly true, and I think we as Americans need to start thinking more about the world and about more ways so that the planet heals.

wheelchairman
12-07-2004, 07:46 AM
Okay, okay... let's say I allow you to have unions for those unskilled factory workers. What about the unions for nurses, for teachers, for retail?

We will play a what do you think is best game...

So, teachers, they have a very strong union (here anyway). It is very difficult for them to get fired. I know I personally have had a lot of pretty bad teachers, some amazing ones, but definitely some bad ones. So, what is more important? To protect the shitty teacher in their job? OR to protect all the students who are supposed to be getting a valuable education from them in a good environment? You let me know about that one, I'm curious.

The same could apply to nurses, who also have a strong union.
Alright we'll play this game, but I cheat and never listen to the rules. You claim all these teachers are bad and that there is nothing to be done about it except fire them.

Now I say the case is more complicated, you say you know personally that they are bad, obviously you have a subjective point of view. Perhaps they are bad, perhaps statistically no one passes their classes, or they only pass cause the teachers are covering their asses.

However, what about the system that trains teachers? Perhaps it's done a pretty bad job. Or what if teachers who are rather old are going through problems (the majority of teachers today are baby-boomers and will be entering retirement soon, needless to say, the majority of people that old do have a lot of problems we don't even realize.)

What this could be as well, is that conservatives (this I believe is typical of conservatives in every country, or at least in the US and in Denmark), claim that the teachers aren't good enough, and the only way to motivate them and make them good teachers is by cutting funds from the local area. This is truly backwards logic in my opinion, but I'm sure you see it as making money the motivating force. So what does the union do? Instead of letting the government make claims about poor teaching so that they can take money away from the educational system, the teachers will be organized and prevent that kind of risky stupidity. (Unless of course you believe that it's not a risk to not invest in public education.)

The same could apply to nurses.

Italia311
12-07-2004, 07:57 AM
Uhm..betty..Teachers have unions...

wheelchairman
12-07-2004, 08:32 AM
Uhm..betty..Teachers have unions...
I believe she's well aware of that.

Betty
12-07-2004, 10:59 AM
Actually, elementary/highschool education is definitely something I support public money going into. I can see absolutely no harm in having a well educated country. The only problem with that is for the people who would rather send their children to a private school, or do homeschooling.

But I also think that if money is going to be invested, there should be higher standards placed on teachers.

Sure you can argue that my point of view is subjective. Or that the teacher has issues. Or that it's not their fault, it's the system that they were trained under.

But I think that's a really cheap way out. Regarding subjectivity, if a teacher can't pass a standardized test, they are not fit to teach. And it's not necessarily whether the students can pass the class, but what if the class teaches nothing and is ridiculously easy? I had a teacher that lectured maybe half the classes, and played Diablo the rest of the time while the class could do whatever. I've had a few teachers that were just really really not intelligent and did not know their subject material. Regarding teacher issues... sure you can feel bad for them, but is it more right to feel bad for them or for the students. And regarding the "system", how does that explain the really great teachers? They are products of the same system.

I feel like you really avoided the issue. Basically, indirectly, I'm getting the impression that regardless what factors are behind it, you would rather support "bad" teachers (possibly denying that there are bad teachers - in which case you are either really lucky or very disillusioned) than the students who have to learn from them.

wheelchairman
12-07-2004, 11:37 AM
Why should I even directly answer an issue that is purely created in your head (in reference to the 'game'), that would be an unfair playing field really. I took the issue and tried to refer to the way I would research it, see what factors were involved for the people who would eventually be the victims of any budget cuts.

Betty
12-07-2004, 12:12 PM
Maybe I should not have called it a "game" for you to take it seriously. Because I think it's a very valid point.

You bring up a valid issue of budget cuts which affects not only teachers but students as well... but you still avoid the issue of whether bad teachers deserve to be protected. Because it's an example where their protection directly affects many other people.

wheelchairman
12-07-2004, 12:14 PM
I don't bother to address the issue, because I don't think there is any proof. As I said in my first post, a lot would depend on the percentage of students passing, the kinds of student in the classroom and all that jazz. I don't approve of bad teachers, but I think the term bad teachers is far too often called out for budget cuts on public school budgets.

Betty
12-07-2004, 12:31 PM
I'm not entirely informed on the issue, but in my province the conservative government a few years back introduced standardized testing for teachers, in an effort to improve the education quality that was lagging behind the rest of the country.

This seems to me like it would be a good way to "prove" whether a teacher is capable of doing their job properly.

I really don't know what the test involves, and I haven't heard much about them since.

But I would imagine a teacher should have a certain level of proficiency in first of all the subject matter they are teaching. And it would make sense to monitor them to make sure they are following the curriculum, etc. Then there is the actual teaching ability and interaction with students, which would be more difficult to determine.

I agree that teachers should not be just labelled bad arbitrarily, but if there is a fair process that teachers went through to make sure they were up to standards, and some of them weren't, I don't think they should be protected in this case, especially if there were many other eligible qualified applicants.

I guess I'm thinking more replacing bad teachers (who were tested, etc) with better ones, as opposed to just cutting them altogether.

Obviously there are a lot of situational factors.

wheelchairman
12-07-2004, 12:50 PM
Perhaps, but it seem quite difficult to judge a teacher's teaching ability from a test, don't you think? A lot depends on method of communication and positioning and such.

However, for example what we do in my school is quite wise I think, we have the students give evaluations on what they think the teacher should change. (for example if he uses too much pointless overheads or gives too many photocopies) that kind of a system really would benefit many I think.

Betty
12-07-2004, 01:07 PM
That is definitely good.

I never had any say in highscool.

In university the system is quite a bit better since it functions on the basis of tenure. Which is granted partially through student evaluations. And if professors don't have tenure, they don't really have any protection cause they haven't merited it yet. Although sometimes they get good tenure and then can kinda slack off since they're more protected, but I don't think I've had any highly tenured professors who were bad.

I thought about mentionning student evaluations for teacher performance, but a lot of students in highschool I don't think are capable of evaluating teachers objectively enough. Like, some students don't like the teachers who teach the tradionally more difficult classes (e.g. calculus, chemistry, physics) because they do poorly in the course. Which is not to say necessarily that the teacher is bad.

Regarding evaluation based on tests... I agree there is more to a teacher than just being able to pass a test... but I think that if they can't pass a basic test in their subject, well, they can't really teach it very properly, I wouldn't think. Although some teachers could pass and still be bad teachers. It would still eliminate those who don't even know the material.

Italia311
12-08-2004, 08:23 PM
I've got about a year left of University and I plan on going to teachers college. I am currently studying Classics and want to be a History teacher. What I dont get about teachers College is that they allow people to teach elementary school who have no mathematical or science background. I.e - ME.
From grades 1 to say about 6...the Science may or may not be hard..depending on the person...but usually someone who has studied in hummanities isn't really a "pro" at science. Same with math...the math can't be that hard to about grade 4-5...but then closer to highschool..like 7 or 8..(you get the point) you should know what you're doing...you're preparing kids for highschool and the whole cirriculum is changed the hit the kids with the hard shit earlier now.

I've been told that If I dont want to continue on and do my Honors in Classics, I can take my 3yr B.A and teach elementary school...Elementary is so broad...and Math and Science are 2 of the most important things someone can learn..math especially. How can they expect me to teach the math and science...or even ask me too?? i didnt take math or science at all in university except calculus..and judging by my mark...I AM NOT!! a pro..:P. The fact they suggested it..and I know..my friend got accepted to teachers college for elementary teaching..didnt take math once. not qualified!! IMO.

Perhaps this may relate...dunno..saw a few posts. Just go's to shows, the teachers colleges don't care what you know..or what you have done...they just want your $$$...and it all stems from thaT! IMO. Non Qualified teachers!

Betty
12-08-2004, 09:10 PM
Yeah, that's somewhat of a good point...

Possibly partially makes up for the union comment, but not entirely.

I thought grades 7-8 counted as an "intermediate" level or something and weren't the same as the younger grades... and therefore teachers did have to be more qualified... I could totally be making this up though.

Italia311
12-08-2004, 09:16 PM
Well yeah..you're right...but they still will take people with no math or science background. My sister is a 4yrs Honors in English. Shes in the intermediate For Teachers College. NO math at all.

and the union comment..I didn't fully read the whole statement...I saw teachers...and the word union and got all excited :) wasn't ment to take a shot at ya.

saska de o...
12-09-2004, 02:21 AM
im gonna study at USC... my sister studies at Oxford Brooks University.. well, i guess that i have some chance go to califirnia...


math and science? well, for me the most important are scniece and math too but english and polish too... :)

glupi post chyba nie na temat no ale...

Italia311
12-09-2004, 01:44 PM
Fuck..i'd go to Oxford...