We all have sympathy for the less fortunate, but the truth is we need the less fortunate to STAY less fortunate. We need people that will do the work that no one wants to do. We need a certain amount of people to fail in their lives and become low wage workers. We really need successful people, but we also need unsuccessful people.
I don't like your terminology for the same reasons the chaps on the other side mention. But you are
right otherwise it would be a case of "too many chiefs and not enough indians".
As sad as it is, I must agree with this. Somebody needs to clean the toilets. It's kind of like
high school cliques; you have to have the dorks in there to make the popular people look cooler.
We don't know do we? We have never been without have nots so we can only guess at the possible
consequences. I suspect things might work just fine. And if it caused some sort of economic crises
well problem solved. Economic crises always causes loads of new have nots.
Low wage workers are not necessarily unsuccessful or failures. You don't have to be rich to be
fortunate. I do agree there are certain jobs that people need to do to help sustain our society, but
this work force does not particularly comply of "have nots".
I know that you're talking money-wise, but I don't see a fortunate person in terms of wealth. It all
depends on your view of who's fortunate. Some would say that you are fortunate to have your health,
your family and friends...
01 Dec 2008 02:54
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
