Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Clinton's argument in the leaked conversation about people not getting it is undermined by her comparing the policies to Scandinavia. Well my take on it, is if people talk about the "Scandinavian model" and the benefits it brings, they're not talking pie in the sky romanticism at all.

She labels moving for Scandinavian-based healthcare and education policy (which are both working models in real life) as "idealism", yet supports a weird healthcare model crudely hacked together, which has never been tested anywhere, that's being pragmatic. I'd say supporting Obamacare in it's current form as the be-all-end-all is like the Dutch kid with his finger in the Dyke.

[Frumple]

She labels moving for Scandinavian-based healthcare and education policy (which are both working models in real life) as "idealism", yet supports a weird healthcare model crudely hacked together, which has never been tested anywhere, that's being pragmatic.

... in the face of the american political landscape? It kinda' is. As much as we'd fucking love a leftwards healthcare system instead of what we got, there's this small problem of several tens of millions of conservatives (just as a start) that wouldn't -- didn't -- exactly go along with it.

[smjjames]

The dumb remark aside, she seemed to sorta get it, but not all Sanders supporters are that young.

... consider reading the whole statement in question, smj. She didn't say they were. Some is a qualifier that exists. It denotes a portion smaller than the entirety, and usually smaller than at-most a plurality.

Maybe the tone paints a different picture, but just reading what was said it's... the same thing I've heard come out of the generation in question (and some surrounding it) talking about themselves. Right down to the wording, since "living in their parents basement" is one of the things us general lot use as shorthand for all the shit surrounding many of us having to fall back on family support now that the older generations and vagrancies of economy and whatnot have screwed us into not having as many advantages as they did. Can tell it's going to be fucked out of context and into the circus tentpole of distortion in short order, but if she said something out of line a metric ton of the people she was talking about are about as off

Oh, didn't know that about the wording 'living in their parent's basement', which would help explain why I took it the wrong way.

[Reelya]

But it has another, more common meaning, which is someone who failed in life. It's a common insult hurled over the 'net. Maybe people have appropriated it in mock self-deprecation recently, IDK, but it's roots are as an insult to the adulthood of your target.

And the statement still smacks of not getting it: she labels the basement-dwellers as "unhappy with the jobs available to them" which implies there are jobs available to them, if they just get off their asses, but they're too entitled to take the ones on offer.

[smjjames]

Hillary Clinton is a sneering elitist, news at 11. Heh, I have to appreciate how much of a mirror this is to Mittens' 48% comment.

I think it was actually 47%? Anyway, yes, it's certainly up there, even if not as heavily reported on.

Stupid election year with both candidates being almost equally unpalatable...... and for the third party candidates being stupid.....

[Frumple]

And the statement still smacks of not getting it: she labels the basement-dwellers as "unhappy with the jobs available to them" which implies there are jobs available to them, if they just get off their asses, but they're too entitled to take the ones on offer.

... you imply that they're too entitled, anyway. Having been job searching for a while now, there usually are jobs available, it's just that they're often enough as bad or worse than not working at all. It's not entitlement that stops folks from getting jobs like that, it's being marginally more aware of things than the older folks that think any job is better than no job (which, being fair to them, it more often was when they were younger).

[Reelya]

Hillary Clinton is a sneering elitist, news at 11. Heh, I have to appreciate how much of a mirror this is to Mittens' 48% comment.

I think it was actually 47%? Anyway, yes, it's certainly up there, even if not as heavily reported on.

Stupid election year with both candidates being almost equally unpalatable...... and for the third party candidates being stupid.....

The only way you can top that is to complain about "the 47% ... pay no taxes, they're living in their parent's basement. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people".

And the statement still smacks of not getting it: she labels the basement-dwellers as "unhappy with the jobs available to them" which implies there are jobs available to them, if they just get off their asses, but they're too entitled to take the ones on offer.

... you imply that they're too entitled, anyway. Having been job searching for a while now, there usually are jobs available, it's just that they're often enough as bad or worse than not working at all. It's not entitlement that stops folks from getting jobs like that, it's being marginally more aware of things than the older folks that think any job is better than no job (which, being fair to them, it more often was when they were younger).

I'm not sure how you can claim that I'm making some assumption of them being "entitled"? That doesn't make any sense. Exactly where did I imply that? What I implied, was that # job seekers is > # jobs, whereas Clinton thinks they don't want jobs that are available to them because they want ones with upward mobility.

[Sheb]

And the statement still smacks of not getting it: she labels the basement-dwellers as "unhappy with the jobs available to them" which implies there are jobs available to them, if they just get off their asses, but they're too entitled to take the ones on offer.

Unemployment rate ain't high in the US, there are jobs if you don't mind working your ass off for poverty wage of moving to North Dakota.

[Reelya]

Isn't there a big discrepancy because the US government only counts people looking for work as unemployed? Which is very different to how it works in Europe and Australia.

For example, Trump claimed a much bigger number out of work, Politfact broke it down.

e.g. 8.3 million people are classified as unemployed. But another 6.4 million are not working, say they want a job, but haven't looked for work recently enough to be classified as the official "unemployment" numbers. And you have another 6.5 million getting part-time only work, who want full-time work. So if you count those groups, America is 12.5% unemployed rather than 5% unemployed. A big difference.

[smjjames]

Isn't there a big discrepancy because the US government only counts people looking for work as unemployed? Which is very different to how it works in Europe and Australia.

How does it work in Europe and Australia? And yes, they only count people who are looking for work and aren't actually employed.

[Kot]

I am pretty sure that to get money from Polish government you either have to be looking for work (technically, at least) or unable to do it.

[Frumple]

Isn't there a big discrepancy because the US government only counts people looking for work as unemployed? Which is very different to how it works in Europe and Australia.

How does it work in Europe and Australia? And yes, they only count people who are looking for work and aren't actually employed.

Like this, apparently.

An unemployed person is defined by Eurostat, according to the guidelines of the International Labour Organization, as someone aged 15 to 74 without work during the reference week who is available to start work within the next two weeks and who has actively sought employment at some time during the last four weeks.

That's for the EU.

Here's australia.

The ABS uses internationally agreed standards in defining unemployment and the key indicators have been measured in a consistent way since 1966.
To be classified as unemployed a person needs to meet the following three criteria:

    - not working more than one hour in the reference week;
    - actively looking for work in previous four weeks; and
    - be available to start work in the reference week.

In comparison, the US does it like so:

People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.

You'll, uh. Notice they're more or less identical.

[Reelya]

You guys cut people off welfare much quicker though, so that would affect the stats. Anyone getting welfare here is counted (unless it's disability or they're a college student).

Basically, you have 6.4 million Americans without a job, who say they want a job, but aren't counted in the stats. In Australia, they'd all be getting financial assistance and assistance in looking for a job (whether they want it or not, but that's not the point), and be counted on the stats. In the USA, those people are probably scrounging a living somehow, and any 4-week period in which they didn't do job search would have them swept off the record books. Australia doesn't do it that way.

[Frumple]

... y'wouldn't happen to have sources for that, would you? 6.4 million is oddly specific, and some cursory searching can't seem to figure out where you're getting it from.

[mainiac]

whereas Clinton thinks they don't want jobs that are available to them because they want ones with upward mobility.

So your objection is not to the statement but to your wild extrapolation from the statement?  Can't say I'm surprised.

But it has another, more common meaning,

I think it has a more common meaning for people who spend time shitting on people on the internet.  How many dank memes do you think Hillary Clinton has posted on reddit?