Book on Gun Violence with a Societal Take

[Clark Jackson]

There is no such thing as "gun violence."

This phrase is a clever way to impose the idea of "gun = bad" by forever linking "gun" to a noun ("violence") with negative connotations. It's a brilliant way to weaponize words.

The same name-game parlor trick is used on nearly everything the politically elite present to the rest of us for consumption without question.

If an idea is packaged and presented via an emotionally charged framework (with slight-of-hand vocabulary) the peasants are more likely to echo emotional appeals for support, without hesitation, and will deride all who attempt any analytical analysis intended to support logical discussion.

Words matter in the game of propaganda, but none of this is new. Multiple classics attempted to warn us for years: Animal Farm, 1984, Brave New World, The Once and Future King, Fahrenheit 451, and Harrison Bergeron... to name a few.

[BehindBlueI's]

Certainly a lot.

However, the "cost" of "giving" someone a job is more than spending money.

Is the same not true of incarcerating someone?

A job is not something that is given. It is earned.

How so?

Would a private business be required to hire them? If so, then the entire cost is being placed on a single entity. Guess how long that entity will remain profitable?

Do we incentivize hiring certain individuals?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us...ion-2018-10-16


There are currently more jobs than available workers. The private sector already has an incentive to hire. The problem is a mismatch of skills, locations, or a complete mismatch of compensation for the work required. The "jobs Americans won't do" that's constantly thrown at us to promote immigration of low wages workers. There are no jobs Americans won't do. Americans mine coal, pick up dead animals, go to foreign deserts to be shot at...but they won't pick fruit?

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...d-for-decades/

After adjusting for inflation, however, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power it did in 1978, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today.

While it's certainly not the only piece to the puzzle, the notion that a lack of attainable jobs that can both support the individual and have some level of societal approval would seem pretty well grounded. Anecdotally, the rise of meth and pills in my hometown correlated pretty well with the closing of major employers and the viability of making a living from small agriculture to unemployment or a host of barely-above-minimum-wage factory jobs once manufacturing picked back up a bit.

Lack of purpose, a societal acceptance of drug use, a reverential attitude toward gang members and drug dealers in popular culture, a general distrust of the gov't and religious institutions, an economy leaving 90% of the wage earners stagnant or losing ground while incredible amounts of wealth are concentrated in the hands of a very few, I think they all have a role to play in the current mess.

[UNK]

Certainly a lot.

However, the "cost" of "giving" someone a job is more than spending money.

How is that job provided?

Would a private business be required to hire them? If so, then the entire cost is being placed on a single entity. Guess how long that entity will remain profitable?

Do we incentivize hiring certain individuals? Unless that individual can contribute more than they cost, that would have to be a significant incentive. What effect does that then have on the rest of the employees? How does that affect the productivity of the organization?

Do we employ them through the government? Same set of problems, but now the cost is spread out more.

A job is not something that is given. It is earned. I am all for helping these people (as well as others) seek, find, and earn a job, but a job is simply not something that can be "given" if our society is to remain productive.

Nobody is going to hire or keep an addict. Nobody wants to work with them. They are a danger to anyone around them.

[Darth_Uno]

And, how do you give someone a job who doesn't want one...

You can’t. I’m an employer. If you want to make an honest 9-5 paycheck there’s nothing stopping you, unless...

Nobody is going to hire or keep an addict. Nobody wants to work with them. They are a danger to anyone around them.

...unless you’re a junkie who can’t keep a job because you either smoked yourself into permanent stupidity, or you just can’t be bothered to show up every day.

[Drang]

And, how do you give someone a job who doesn't want one...

In a free market economy where the potential labor force has freedom of choice, you can't.

You can in a command economy, where the potential labor force is subject to rather draconian discipline, and results in Soviet-grade quality control. "Okay, comrades, we've reached our quota for the week, break out the vodka!" "But it's 0930 on Thursday." "Party for the rest of the week!"

Alternately, "giving people jobs they don't want" is why I had to maintain duty rosters. That only works at Battalion level and below, with personnel subject to the UCMJ and the potential for the 1SG to get hammered if his duty roster is upgefukt.

#AnsweringRhetoricalQuestions

[BillSWPA]

Is the same not true of incarcerating someone?



How so?



https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us...ion-2018-10-16


There are currently more jobs than available workers. The private sector already has an incentive to hire. The problem is a mismatch of skills, locations, or a complete mismatch of compensation for the work required. The "jobs Americans won't do" that's constantly thrown at us to promote immigration of low wages workers. There are no jobs Americans won't do. Americans mine coal, pick up dead animals, go to foreign deserts to be shot at...but they won't pick fruit?

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...d-for-decades/



While it's certainly not the only piece to the puzzle, the notion that a lack of attainable jobs that can both support the individual and have some level of societal approval would seem pretty well grounded. Anecdotally, the rise of meth and pills in my hometown correlated pretty well with the closing of major employers and the viability of making a living from small agriculture to unemployment or a host of barely-above-minimum-wage factory jobs once manufacturing picked back up a bit.

Lack of purpose, a societal acceptance of drug use, a reverential attitude toward gang members and drug dealers in popular culture, a general distrust of the gov't and religious institutions, an economy leaving 90% of the wage earners stagnant or losing ground while incredible amounts of wealth are concentrated in the hands of a very few, I think they all have a role to play in the current mess.

You have a job. You obtained that job by acquiring the appropriate training and education, and then convincing your employer that you would be as good or better at doing the job than the other candidates. You then proceeded to show up every workday to do that job. You were not "given" that job. You earn it every day.

Regarding the availability of jobs, mismatch between the current skillset of employees verses the skills needed by employers, the connection between the departure of industry and drug use, etc., we have no disagreement whatsoever.

I am all for making educational opportunities available to match the available skillsets to the needed skillsets (but not necessarily for free), providing incentives to manufacture in the US, providing incentives to employers to locate in areas that need jobs (as long as those incentives are not given to some businesses but not others), and providing incentives and guidance for those who are motivated to start businesses.

I am also in favor of giving people a second chance if they screwed up, paid the price, and are not trying to do things the right way. We will never return people to productive status in society by continually penalizing them for crimes committed long ago.

I stop short of the idea of simply "giving" people jobs, etc,, because any time government "gives" someone something, it was using resources that were taken from someone else. We also need to recognize that the only people who can be helped are those who realize they need help and actually want to be helped.

[FNFAN]

I remember the first time I heard the "doing the jobs Americans won't do" thing from Bush on the radio. It was immediately followed by a story that summer unemployment for teens would be exceedingly high as there were relatively few jobs available.