Interesting MIT Economist research on 99%

[kandrathe]

I'm on my phone and can't quote correctly, however I wanted to comment that I found the similarities between your last paragraph and FITs logic on the ideal society to be uncanny.

I was thinking the same thing. This just goes to show that in the end we all really want the same things - well paying jobs, an educated populace, and quality healthcare.

I think I've said it before that FIT and I are usually in close agreement on the issues, and 180 degrees opposed on the solutions.

Although, what I said was not exactly this. What I see is that in general, even if you are well skilled, and there are employers who want to hire people with your skill set, it is usually perseverance and chance that determines whether the yin finds the yang in this case.

I do find the whole "supply and demand" model a bit callous and too serendipity when we are speaking of people needing employment to feed their families. People end up taking the first thing that comes along, and possibly changing upwards when possible -- which leads to instability for the employer as well. It's not very efficient, and is probably a big source of unhappiness for both workers and employers. I don't have a good solution, and it sure as heck wouldn't be better by having a central commissar in government command employment.

The difference in ideology is in the details - the implementation.

Yes. This is it. From the article Dr. Auter listed;

• excellent preschool through high school education;
• broad access to post secondary education; and
• good nutrition,
• good public health, and
• high-quality home environments

Number one is a given, and there is ample evidence to show that pre K and funding all day kindergarten is a great investment. Some parents are very good at preparing their kids for school, however with a growing population of dual earners -- more and more kids are subjected to the variability of pre K offered by their day care provider. On #2, our society is in a food crisis. Most people don't have access to good nutritional food, and too many of us rely on over processed crap filled with too much sugar, fat, salt, and chemicals. #3, I note does not say health care, or health insurance. Yes, they help the unhealthy and can be preventative, but one reason for our soaring cost of health care, and thereby health insurance is that we are very unhealthy. Our out of control health care costs are not due to too much preventative care. Rather, it is due to too many unhealthy people. And, for #4, a healthy home environment is one where parents care for and are involved in helping form healthy, happy, well adjusted children. I don't see that happen very often. I see children getting lost in our hustle bustle rat race and squeezed in for some quality time between homework, and dinner, then off to bed. For a large part of our population due to divorces they get ping ponged on weekends from one parent to the other. I'm a big advocate for a "family first" approach to society.

Kandrathe is a Libertarian...

I'm really not sure. I'm not really as much of an ideologue as most of those I've met. In a recent political thing I went to, some guy was asking whether we needed laws regulating drugs and prostitution, and I found myself saying, "yes, probably". I was thinking that ideologically, if consenting adults in their homes wanted to get high, or have sex for money, then why would the government be involved. But, pragmatically, and realistically, what we see in certain issues is a highly manipulative form of exploitation targeting the most vulnerable people in our society. For prostitution, it's the too young, recent immigrants, or sex slaves imported from other countries who are mostly imprisoned. I don't hear a clamor of disgruntled Americans calling for the right to sell their bodies.

With drugs, yes there is some level of recreational use, but by and large the most destructive part of the trade is in forming a market of dedicated addicts. So, while I'm not against the "individuals freedom", I see issues of coercion and exploitation when it is married to commerce. It certainly doesn't lead to a healthier society. I see no reason that government should want to make it easier to get high, but also should work to minimize the costs which means a compromise. I would say that compromise would be that the individuals (e.g. prostitutes and addicts) are more likely the victims who should not be punished, while the people earning the money (commercializing it) would be the ones we should discourage by regulating or imprisoning.