NationStates

Paddy O Fernature wrote:
It also generally pays really well. If you want to earn a solid paycheck, stop being lazy and put the time and effort into it.

Welders, Heavy Equipment Operators, Pavers, Truckers, ect ect all make good money and don't require a college degree to get in. You just have to be willing to put in the personal effort.

Not everyone who can't or won't do backbreaking work is "lazy".

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:
It also generally pays really well. If you want to earn a solid paycheck, stop being lazy and put the time and effort into it.

Welders, Heavy Equipment Operators, Pavers, Truckers, ect ect all make good money and don't require a college degree to get in. You just have to be willing to put in the personal effort.

Not everyone who can't or won't do backbreaking work is "lazy".

Yes, however in my experience the amount of people who "won't" due to sheer laziness and self entitlement far overshadows those who physically cannot.

New haven america wrote:>You don't understand what trade schools are
>Presents sources that lists only universities

Yeah, sure, ok, you keep thinking that.

I don't see what the issue is. Learn.org explicitly states the courses found at trade schools, lo and behold, they're not just physically intensive or dangerous tradie jobs. It then lists some the most popular schools, some of which are universities, technical colleges or institutes of technology. My other source says also proves my initial point that you can go to trade school to become a nurse.

I don't know why you insist trade schools just provide education for tradies?

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:
It also generally pays really well. If you want to earn a solid paycheck, stop being lazy and put the time and effort into it.

Welders, Heavy Equipment Operators, Pavers, Truckers, ect ect all make good money and don't require a college degree to get in. You just have to be willing to put in the personal effort.

Not everyone who can't or won't do backbreaking work is "lazy".

Not everyone, but I have heard so many show disdain for the trades and complain they cant find a job in the same conversation.

We do folks a disservice telling kids college is the only way to a good job.

Ethel mermania wrote:

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Not everyone who can't or won't do backbreaking work is "lazy".

Not everyone, but I have heard so many show disdain for the trades and complain they cant find a job in the same conversation.

We do folks a disservice telling kids college is the only way to a good job.

It's a huge problem IMO.

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:
As a former journeyman electrician, electrical work is also back breaking. The thing is, back breaking work has to be done by someone and must be done by someone.

1. It also generally pays really well. If you want to earn a solid paycheck, 2. stop being lazy and put the time and effort into it.

3. Welders, Heavy Equipment Operators, Pavers, Truckers, ect ect all make good money and don't require a college degree to get in. You just have to be willing to put in the personal effort.

1. Again, in the US, that's only if you live in a compulsory union state, if you don't, then you're getting paid shit.
2. Just because people don't want to break their back or aren't interested in the type of labor that trade skills provide doesn't make them lazy.
3. Basically all of those are backbreaking and disabling labor.

Nakena wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:Not everyone, but I have heard so many show disdain for the trades and complain they cant find a job in the same conversation.

We do folks a disservice telling kids college is the only way to a good job.

It's a huge problem IMO.

Agreed. More information certainly needs to be made available about it IMO.

New haven america wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:
1. It also generally pays really well. If you want to earn a solid paycheck, 2. stop being lazy and put the time and effort into it.

3. Welders, Heavy Equipment Operators, Pavers, Truckers, ect ect all make good money and don't require a college degree to get in. You just have to be willing to put in the personal effort.

1. Again, in the US, that's only if you live in a compulsory union state, if you don't, then you're getting paid shit.
2. Just because people don't want to break their back or aren't interested in the type of labor that trade skills provide doesn't make them lazy.
3. Basically all of those are backbreaking and disabling labor.

1: Absolutely not true. Yes, Unions generally pay more overall, but that doesn't automatically mean non union jobs compensate poorly.
2: It is when it's a perfectly applicable job with good pay and people turn it down while continuing to whine about how they can't find a good job.
3: Basically not. Not sure if you are aware of this, but most jobs require some form of physical labor coming from the users end. Welders move gear and equipment from truck to job and back to truck again, Heavy equipment operators.... lift a dip cup to their mouths while they soak up the A/C.... Pavers have to stand over 300+ deg Hotmix and twirl a lever to keep the depth of the spread equal... truckers have to content with sitting for twelve hours a day with maybe an hour mixed in where they help load/unload their loads at the loading docks ect ect ect. That's hardly game over back breaking shit right there like you are trying to make it out to be.

Esheaun Stroakuss wrote:I mean, you have to admit, we've ran our course. Whilst we have done a lot of good, we've done (and still do) a lot of bad:

1. Authoritarian ideologies
2. Environmental destruction
3. Murder
4. Rape
5. Fucking with people's livelihoods

Isn't it about time we just said, "screw it", and cease to exist?

Or....not?

What can we do to live on as a people, to reduce the awful stuff we do? Is there even anything that can be done?

We should at least create AI to be awesome successors first.

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

New haven america wrote:1. Again, in the US, that's only if you live in a compulsory union state, if you don't, then you're getting paid shit.
2. Just because people don't want to break their back or aren't interested in the type of labor that trade skills provide doesn't make them lazy.
3. Basically all of those are backbreaking and disabling labor.

1: Absolutely not true. Yes, Unions generally pay more overall, but that doesn't automatically mean non union jobs compensate poorly.
2: It is when it's a perfectly applicable job with good pay and people turn it down while continuing to whine about how they can't find a good job.
3: Basically not. Not sure if you are aware of this, but most jobs require some form of physical labor coming from the users end. Welders move gear and equipment from truck to job and back to truck again, Heavy equipment operators.... lift a dip cup to their mouths while they soak up the A/C.... Pavers have to stand over 300+ deg Hotmix and twirl a lever to keep the depth of the spread equal... truckers have to content with sitting for twelve hours a day with maybe an hour mixed in where they help load/unload their loads at the loading docks ect ect ect. That's hardly fucking game over back breaking shit right there.

1. I'm not talking about union jobs specifically, I'm talking about union states. The US has At-Will states and Compulsory Union states. If you're a trade worker in an At-Will state then you're most likely making shit pay for the job you do ($20-40k a year), but if you're in a Compulsory Union state, then you're probably gonna make $60-120k a year. There are of course anomalies, but this is the general trend that appears.
2. Except it's not because most trade jobs still require specialized schooling and are backbreaking and disabling. Most people don't feel like having to use a walker or having to get expensive back and knee surgery in their late 30's/early 40's.
3. You're right, most jobs do require physical labor, with trade jobs being extra demanding and hazardous comparatively. Also, all of the jobs you mentioned tend to be considered backbreaking labor.

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Not everyone who can't or won't do backbreaking work is "lazy".

Yes, however in my experience the amount of people who "won't" due to sheer laziness and self entitlement far overshadows those who physically cannot.

...or because they have an adequate job which is not one of those back-breaking labor jobs?

New haven america wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:
1: Absolutely not true. Yes, Unions generally pay more overall, but that doesn't automatically mean non union jobs compensate poorly.
2: It is when it's a perfectly applicable job with good pay and people turn it down while continuing to whine about how they can't find a good job.
3: Basically not. Not sure if you are aware of this, but most jobs require some form of physical labor coming from the users end. Welders move gear and equipment from truck to job and back to truck again, Heavy equipment operators.... lift a dip cup to their mouths while they soak up the A/C.... Pavers have to stand over 300+ deg Hotmix and twirl a lever to keep the depth of the spread equal... truckers have to content with sitting for twelve hours a day with maybe an hour mixed in where they help load/unload their loads at the loading docks ect ect ect. That's hardly fucking game over back breaking shit right there.

1. I'm not talking about union jobs specifically, I'm talking about union states. The US has At-Will states and Compulsory Union states. If you're a trade worker in an At-Will state then you're most likely making shit pay for the job you do ($20-40k a year), but if you're in a Compulsory Union state, then you're probably gonna make $60-120k a year. There are of course anomalies, but this is the general trend that appears.
2. Except it's not because most trade jobs still require specialized schooling and are backbreaking and disabling. Most people don't feel like having to use a walker or having to get expensive back and knee surgery in their late 30's/early 40's.
3. You're right, most jobs do require physical labor, with trade jobs being extra demanding and hazardous comparatively.

1: I'm calling bullshit on making 20k a year in a trade school job as that's literally below min wage status and I know trades workers make more then uneducated burger flippers, union or not.
2: Going to need to see a source that most people working a trade school job are physically crippled by 30, as again, that's bullshit as I know a lot of people in a couple of different fields that are mid to late 30's and are perfectly fit, myself included.
3: Yes, so extra demanding.

So going to school is too much work, and work is too much work, all I'm hearing is excuses for being lazy going both ways now.

Cekoviu wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:
Yes, however in my experience the amount of people who "won't" due to sheer laziness and self entitlement far overshadows those who physically cannot.

...or because they have an adequate job which is not one of those back-breaking labor jobs?

None of the jobs that I have listed are back breaking, far from it actually. To call them so certainly does bring into question what low standard of measure you are trying to pass for what constitutes "work".

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

New haven america wrote:1. I'm not talking about union jobs specifically, I'm talking about union states. The US has At-Will states and Compulsory Union states. If you're a trade worker in an At-Will state then you're most likely making shit pay for the job you do ($20-40k a year), but if you're in a Compulsory Union state, then you're probably gonna make $60-120k a year. There are of course anomalies, but this is the general trend that appears.
2. Except it's not because most trade jobs still require specialized schooling and are backbreaking and disabling. Most people don't feel like having to use a walker or having to get expensive back and knee surgery in their late 30's/early 40's.
3. You're right, most jobs do require physical labor, with trade jobs being extra demanding and hazardous comparatively.

1: I'm calling bullshit on making 20k a year in a trade school job as that's literally below min wage status and I know trades workers make more then uneducated burger flippers, union or not.
2: Going to need to see a source that most people working a trade school job are physically crippled by 30, as again, that's bullshit as I know a lot of people in a couple of different fields that are mid to late 30's and are perfectly fit, myself included.
3: Yes, so extra demanding.

4. So going to school is too much work, and work is too much work, all I'm hearing is excuses for being lazy going both ways now.

1. That's cool. Just cause you don't want to accept the fact that trade jobs don't pay 6 figures everywhere isn't my problem. Also, btw, a minimum wage yearly income would be closer to $10-15k a year.
2. 3/5 industries that happen to be considered trade industries also happen to be some of the most injury prone, who would'a thunk it?
3. Yep, exactly. Another term you could use is backbreaking labor.
4. Hey, you wanna end up with a walker by your early 40's, then you do you. But neither you nor I should judge the work/careers other people take up in order to get by. (Unless of course those jobs lead to the deliberate harm of others)

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:...or because they have an adequate job which is not one of those back-breaking labor jobs?

None of the jobs that I have listed are back breaking, far from it actually. To call them so certainly does bring into question what low standard of measure you are trying to pass for what constitutes "work".

Doesn't matter. The point is that people aren't lazy just because they aren't electricians, plumbers, truckers, or whatever, and it's frankly insulting to imply that.

Cekoviu wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:
None of the jobs that I have listed are back breaking, far from it actually. To call them so certainly does bring into question what low standard of measure you are trying to pass for what constitutes "work".

Doesn't matter. The point is that people aren't lazy just because they aren't electricians, plumbers, truckers, or whatever, and it's frankly insulting to imply that.

Sure they are. What do you think scientists, doctors, civic workers, office workers, minimum wage laborers, etc... do all day? They just sit around doing nothing while actual hardworking tradesmen and women are out their building the world.

Cekoviu wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:
None of the jobs that I have listed are back breaking, far from it actually. To call them so certainly does bring into question what low standard of measure you are trying to pass for what constitutes "work".

Doesn't matter. The point is that people aren't lazy just because they aren't electricians, plumbers, truckers, or whatever, and it's frankly insulting to imply that.

Do you think it's reasonable to say that our relatively cushy living here in the West has made us, hmm, complacent? I mean, in the one breath we're told that illegal aliens are doing the jobs Americans won't do because we're lazy and then in the next breath we're told that it's insulting to call people who don't wanna do manual labor lazy.

Nova Cyberia wrote:Do you think it's reasonable to say that our relatively cushy living here in the West has made us, hmm, complacent?

No. For a lot of people it still isn't cushy. Or it isnt anymore.

But for the Mainstream Media and their narratives? Sure.

Nova Cyberia wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:Doesn't matter. The point is that people aren't lazy just because they aren't electricians, plumbers, truckers, or whatever, and it's frankly insulting to imply that.

Do you think it's reasonable to say that our relatively cushy living here in the West has made us, hmm, complacent? I mean, in the one breath we're told that illegal aliens are doing the jobs Americans won't do because we're lazy and then in the next breath we're told that it's insulting to call people who don't wanna do manual labor lazy.

I've never said that to my recollection, so I'm not sure why you're asking me. Certainly, jobs involving less intense physical activity are more popular among socioeconomically well-off people (largely due to the disparate ease of attainment), but that doesn't necessarily indicate an overall laziness. Perhaps physical laziness for some, but that's only one subset of the whole story. And it's not even accurate frequently - I mean, I'm not physically lazy even though I do very little physical labor in my job aside from occasionally moving heavy stuff like computers and terraria; I just get exercise outside of work.

Cekoviu wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:Do you think it's reasonable to say that our relatively cushy living here in the West has made us, hmm, complacent? I mean, in the one breath we're told that illegal aliens are doing the jobs Americans won't do because we're lazy and then in the next breath we're told that it's insulting to call people who don't wanna do manual labor lazy.

I've never said that to my recollection, so I'm not sure why you're asking me. Certainly, jobs involving less intense physical activity are more popular among socioeconomically well-off people (largely due to the disparate ease of attainment), but that doesn't necessarily indicate an overall laziness. Perhaps physical laziness for some, but that's only one subset of the whole story. And it's not even accurate frequently - I mean, I'm not physically lazy even though I do very little physical labor in my job aside from occasionally moving heavy stuff like computers and terraria; I just get exercise outside of work.

That part wasn't really directed at you. I'm just spouting off. I... do that sometimes.

Anyway, while I would agree with you that not being employed in a physically-demanding job is not automatically indicative of laziness I do think many Americans will avoid jobs which require a lot of physical labor, and that is something which needs to change culturally.

Nakena wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:Do you think it's reasonable to say that our relatively cushy living here in the West has made us, hmm, complacent?

No. For a lot of people it still isn't cushy. Or it isnt anymore.

But for the Mainstream Media and their narratives? Sure.

The average poor person in America is far better off than the average poor person in a developing country.

Nova Cyberia wrote:

Nakena wrote:
No. For a lot of people it still isn't cushy. Or it isnt anymore.

But for the Mainstream Media and their narratives? Sure.

The average poor person in America is far better off than the average poor person in a developing country.

The average poor person in America is far better off than the average person in a developing country. To be poor in the United States is to have freedom to work two or three jobs, improve one's life, and cease to be poor. To be average in a developing country is to have to live in a society in which a bureaucratic class ignores property rights, thus stagnating growth, for personal gain. I'd far rather be penniless and on the streets as a US citizen in the US than be even upper middle class in most other nations.

Antityranicals wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:The average poor person in America is far better off than the average poor person in a developing country.

The average poor person in America is far better off than the average person in a developing country. To be poor in the United States is to have freedom to work two or three jobs, improve one's life, and cease to be poor. To be average in a developing country is to have to live in a society in which a bureaucratic class ignores property rights, thus stagnating growth, for personal gain. I'd far rather be penniless and on the streets as a US citizen in the US than be even upper middle class in most other nations.

Aww, I haven't seen an American Dream idealist in a while. How cute.

We can not accept defeat, even if it is pre-destined. We must carry on, if only out of respect for our ancestors in WW1 (Or the African/Asian slave revolts if you're not European) who died so that we may live.

Those who came before us tangled with far greater monsters than our own inadequacy - Such as, for example, our special adequacy in regards to killing each other! We're far better at collective murder than we are at collective failure.

For all it's worth, I hope you can carry on carrying on ... Even if you can't, it's worth knowing that the Quantum Suicide principle means you will probably be forced to do so regardless of your preference. So why take yourself out of my reality? Out of spite for me? I want you to succeed!

The separation of consciousness is an illusion. All of us are slaves, and all of us are kings. All that will happen has happened already. The only choice is, in which reality do you want your conscious mind to end up? For me, it's the reality where we haven't given up on living.

May you live ten thousand years and succeed in your endeavors comrade!

Kaltovar wrote:We can not accept defeat, even if it is pre-destined. We must carry on, if only out of respect for our ancestors in WW1 (Or the African/Asian slave revolts if you're not European) who died so that we may live.

Those who came before us tangled with far greater monsters than our own inadequacy - Such as, for example, our special adequacy in regards to killing each other! We're far better at collective murder than we are at collective failure.

For all it's worth, I hope you can carry on carrying on ... Even if you can't, it's worth knowing that the Quantum Suicide principle means you will probably be forced to do so regardless of your preference. So why take yourself out of my reality? Out of spite for me? I want you to succeed!

The separation of consciousness is an illusion. All of us are slaves, and all of us are kings. All that will happen has happened already. The only choice is, in which reality do you want your conscious mind to end up? For me, it's the reality where we haven't given up on living.

May you live ten thousand years and succeed in your endeavors comrade!

I like your viewpoint despite mine are slightly different. Very slightly so.