ygmir wrote:well, true........but, how does pork, jerk?
opens the pun-O-matic
well first you have to "pound it"
geekster wrote:sandypandy wrote:in the event of apocalypse, you think a community of hipsters and yupsters are going to gel together in any meaningful way? yikes! i'd rather hide in my basement with a ton of campbell's...
There will be huge numbers of people who demand that "somebody do something". People are becoming so conditioned to be "taken care of" by government, for example, that I am not sure the notion of being responsible for themselves will even occur to many of them beyond simply trying take something from someone else or demanding that government take from someone else and give to them.
They might see someone who has taken some initiative and is getting by, but then demand that it isn't "fair" that some have more than others and demand that some be taken away from that person and given to the others.
So what I believe will happen then is that the people who do have that initiative will flee. At that point the people who don't have the skills to get by on their own will have nobody to learn those skills from. They will have chased away all their potential mentors.
And increasingly large number of people depend on an decreasing number of people to feed them. All we need is one killing frost across the Midwest or say in the Central Valley of California and a lot of people will be in a world of hurt.
There are some skills people even in a city can learn that can increase their chances of survival. Learning how to preserve food isn't hard to do. Learning how to pickle things or learning how to can things can make a huge difference and can be done at home even in the city. This is important because food supplies could be fleeting. You might have access to something one day and it could be gone the next. Networking will be important too. Forming your own ad hoc "coop" among friends can greatly increase your access to things but you will find in hard times, people who do not contribute things will be shunned from such coops. People aren't going to be "taken care of" and are going to have to develop some skill that makes them an asset to those around them.
Learning how to repair clothing, how to make clothing, especially being able to take clothing that is "worn out" and making something else out of it, say by quilting or patching, gives you a useful still in a situation where the infrastructure can not deliver goods of sufficient quantity. Remaining calm is also important. Doing what you can to prevent further destruction of available resources and organizing efficient use of things can be important, too. That might be the "black rock ranger" type of person in such a situation. Pulling together as a community, sharing skills and resources, and helping calm the situation and keeping a clear head will be extremely important. There will be those who will simply agitate to inflame the situation and those people will make things worse. Those people may find themselves being physically eliminated by the community in a very severe situation. The community is not going to have resources to waste on jails and lawyers and trials and judges. They are likely to face a quick hearing and swift justice.
The bottom line is not to expect someone else to "take care of" you and don't expect any "Robin Hood" to take from someone else to give to you. You must justify your existence by having something to offer the community at large. In a severe crisis there aren't going to be a lot of outside resources to draw from.
geekster wrote:You mean like this?
When the mayor of New Orleans was informed that this bus fleet was available but turned it down only to decide later that he wanted to use it but it was too late because it was already flooded in? Those school buses?
Hey liberals! LOOK AWAY!
geekster wrote:Hey liberals! LOOK AWAY!
I don't see that as a liberal/conservative political issue. I am an engineer. I approach it more like a common sense "use what resources you have at hand to get the job done" sort of issue. The guy was just a dumbass and he lost his job the next time he was up for election, as did the governor lose hers, as it should have been.
Idiots come in all political flavors.
geekster wrote:I don't mean to be disparaging to government workers, they didn't decide to pay themselves these salaries and benefits. When you have a report that comes out today showing the average federal worker gets TWICE the salary and benefits of the average private sector worker, it is enough to make people upset. When you see people collecting 85% or more of their salary for 30 years after they retire with full medical for life and cost of living increases, it is enough to make people's blood boil.
It isn't the fault of the workers themselves in most cases, it is the fault of their unions. I have no problem with an individual government worker engaging in any political activity they want. I *do* have a major problem with public employee unions engaging in political activities. It creates a built-in conflict of interest with any politician they support.
My best friend is a government worker. She is a civil engineer with a city in California. SHE didn't create her pay and benefit scale. The problem I have is politicians and bureaucrats who assume things will always go up and make decisions based on that. When the income of the people is going down, it isn't the time for the pay of govt workers to go up. Government needs to be able to adjust pay scales according to the economic reality in that jurisdiction. They have boxed themselves in and can't make any adjustments.
Even a generous defined contribution plan where govt simply kicks in an annual amount of cash into an individual's retirement account (one which the individual could contribute to as well) would be fine. Once the employee retires, the contributions would end and the city or county or state doesn't find itself in the situation it is in now where they are paying more people who aren't working than they are paying who are working.
If you work for a government for, say, 25 years, retire at 55, and live another 30 years, you are going to make a lot more in monthly checks than you made working. Hell, it's a great gig, I would take it in a moment but in the public sector, such pensions were phased out in the 1980's because they weren't sustainable and were bankrupting companies.
Such plans were fine in the 1940's and 1950's until the average life expectancy started going through the roof. Someone might retire and live maybe 10 years IF they even made it to retirement.
Users browsing this forum: sparr and 3 guests