WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I only have 5 sick days.

Although I will say the number of times UK co-workers used to get signed off for 2 weeks because of "stress" or didn't come in the day after a night out used to really wind me up.

Yeah - that is a shitter, but in my experience there are certain jobs that that behaviour was endemic to (i.e. telephone banking call centers for example), which had high employee turnover anyway.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I only have 5 sick days.

Although I will say the number of times UK co-workers used to get signed off for 2 weeks because of "stress" or didn't come in the day after a night out used to really wind me up.

Yeah - that is a shitter, but in my experience there are certain jobs that that behaviour was endemic to (i.e. telephone banking call centers for example), which had high employee turnover anyway.

Call centers and the public sector. I understand people at call centers getting stressed but most people in the public sector who think they have "stressful" jobs need to be shipped off to work in a factory in China.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I only have 5 sick days.

Although I will say the number of times UK co-workers used to get signed off for 2 weeks because of "stress" or didn't come in the day after a night out used to really wind me up.

Yeah - that is a shitter, but in my experience there are certain jobs that that behaviour was endemic to (i.e. telephone banking call centers for example), which had high employee turnover anyway.

Call centers and the public sector. I understand people at call centers getting stressed but most people in the public sector who think they have "stressful" jobs need to be shipped off to work in a factory in China.

Nah - the call centers aren't terribly stressful, they are repetitive and tedious jobs however (my town had 3, basically the major employer in the area - I used to work for the company training department when I first got out of uni) - "how can I disguise my non-enthusiasm about this prepared script I have to read, regardless of anything you say on the other end" - and they pay ####### as well.

In my view - the people that do that have no little real responsiblity in their job (and no means to be proactive), a poor work ethic - and judge their job performance on hours worked rather than on work completed.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Well I have never worked in one but I would be stressed out putting up with the abuse they put up with. I have worked in the public sector and it is populated with employees who could learn a thing or 2 about real stress.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well I have never worked in one but I would be stressed out putting up with the abuse they put up with. I have worked in the public sector and it is populated with employees who could learn a thing or 2 about real stress.

Well you do get abuse - and I think it is stressful if you are someone who empathasises with people about their problems. From what I saw the people that were successful in that environment were the total a$$holes who who didn't let empathy get in the way - I once overheard one of the agents talking to a customer on the phone who hadn't paid their credit card due to being hospitalised for cancer - and the guy actually said "Cancer's not my problem".

Or the senior manager who refused to write off a debt for a deceased man, despite the fact that the sole next of kin had had a mental breakdown subsequently and was in a psychiatric hospital - not earning any money and incapable of managing his own affairs.

Edited September 14, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[Wei&Shu(Joe) 2]

Suffice to say - this is yet more baiting and pandering to stereotypes.

Another perspective (interesting of course that "elitism" is an label applied consistently and only to liberal academics).

The Age of American Unreason

Exactly.I believe in respecting everyone's opinion.This world would be awfully boring if everyone thought the same now wouldn't it ?

OP- "I've often noticed on this board and elsewhere that many folks , especially those of liberal bent- dismiss those who disagree with them as dumb or stupid or lacking of critical thinking."

These are very interesting ideas that we should think long and hard about. They've been sold to us and we repeat them without thinking.

Everyone's opinion should be respected and considered in the debate? The opinion's relationship to reality should not be an important consideration? Why treat schizophrenics? Don't their delusions just add a more interesting spice to the world? I've met patients who believed Canada was planning to invade America. Your suggesting that rather than reality test this idea, it should be given equal weight and respected for making life less boring and then we should spend time debating whether to launch a preemptive strike on Canada.

That leads to the second quote from the OP which suggests that when people have not reality tested their ideas or have failed to think critically about them. it is improper or disrespectful to point out that fact. The lack of critical thought is crippling America. Obviously false, counterproductive ideas are being proposed on ideological (i.e. superstitious) grounds and we hear from many sides that reality testing these ideas would be an awful thing. Who gains in that process? Certainly not the people who's money is being spent.

To point out the lack of critical thinking, on either side, and to reality test their ideas is a GOOD thing. It is respectful to yourself and your fellow citizens. To follow bad ideas to ruin because it would have been disrespectful to note their lack of reality is insane. To entertain fantasies in national policy so that things are more interesting is equally insane. Those who need that degree of "interesting-ness" can watch soap operas. There is no need to introduce that into the debate on the direction of the country.

[Wei&Shu(Joe) 2]

S has anyone condidered mapping the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of Democrats??

There have been many studies that look at the mental processes of different self-identified groups. Most of them have contrasted self-identified "conservatives" and self-identified "liberals."

My opinion of why the media has carried more of the conservative mindset has been because the media does operate on the principle of "interestingness". The response from "conservatives" has been quite loud and attention grabbing, while the response from liberals has been that they pretty accurately describe the strength and weakness of liberal thought.

The pattern for liberals is to "over-process". They attempt to look at every angle, even some that may be irrelevant. Being in a state of "not-knowing" tends to produce a low level of anxiety and so they can tend to maintain that state longer while they consider the options. The weakness of this style is that it can be paralyzed by the introduction of too much information and the process may stop rather than proceed to a conclusion. This style sacrifices speed for accuracy. In early human history this genetic pattern was probably selected against. If the grass nearby rustles and you freeze to think about whether it is the wind, a rabbit, a lizaard, or a tiger, well your chance of being tiger food is increased.

So the strength is accuracy. The weakness is speed. The danger is paralysis by information. If you speak to your liberal co-citizens you will most likely find that they feel a connection to the founders because these men created a system that favored accuracy over speed, especially in the judicial system.

The "conservative" mental process has been described as "seize and freeze". Obviously, this is a much better mindset early on. If the grass rustle, you run first because there IS a tiger there. If it wasn't a tiger you didn't lose anything. The conclusion was seized and acted on. If your buddy says you can go back because it was only the wind, that is irrelevant information. The conclusion has frozen and it is very difficult to overcome that idea, no matter how much evidence is presented. This genetic predisposition will obviously be selected for in our early history. The process sacrifices accuracy for speed. Thus, in early human history, the judicial system favors "scapegoating" over investigation. The state of "not knowing" is highly anxiety provoking for this mindset. "Knowing", even if wrong, is most important and anxiety relieving.

So the strength is speed. The weakness is accuracy. The danger is that once on a bad course, no amount of information from reality will impact the decision to continue.

This data tells you about both sides, not just one. We could use the strength and attempt to avoid the weakness of both groups but I don't see that happening any time soon.

It does allow you to understand many positions that are held on either side, however. If we could concentrate on understanding more it could be a good thing. There are certainly situations where the liberal mindset is not the most effective. That is also true of the conservative mindset.

But you can see from those differences and at least understand why liberals are OK with the constitution and the system the founders set up, while conservatives tend to criticize the system for being too slow.

You can see why liberals tend to favor the ACLUs positions of supporting that system as written, while conservatives tend to think that speed should be held above the system.

You can see why liberals are less likely to support the death penalty, since it will be frequently applied incorrectly, while for conservatives it is still acceptable as a form of scapegoating that brings a conclusion to the process, right or wrong.

You can go on and on and see that the positions on either side make sense relative to these cognitive styles.

I have only seen conservatives suggest that this data means they are being called stupid. The liberals I know see this as an opportunity to understand each other better, to understand our strengths and weaknesses better, and make the best of our national resources.

My opinion is that from the conservative side the current thrust is that you must respect our weaknesses as strengths or you are being mean to us. If we can both acknowledge our weaknesses and move forward we can actually create the greatest good for the greatest number.

[Wei&Shu(Joe) 2]

Here is the data on the tax plans. I'm sure that most of you are in those groups that get the increase under Obama's plan.

Also, there was a pre-release this week of a book by McCain's chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, in which he "does the arithmetic" and finds that tax hikes of 550 to 700 billion are needed beyond the spending cuts proposed by McCain in order to achieve the result that's been promised. He was asked why, if the aritmetic indicates the tax cut plan is fiscal suicide, is the campaign still pushing the tax cuts? His response"

"It's the brand, he said, and you don't dilute the brand."

Translation, our base that has already seized and frozen on the idea will be more alienated if we presented reality to them than they would be by following us to financial ruin.

[Tsup2 0]

Democrat: What can the government do for me?

Republican: How can I get the government out of my life?

[IAMX 3,055]

Minimum wage isn't supposed to be a "living wage," let alone what you depend on to support a family. It is for entry-level, non-skilled positions. If you are getting minimum wage and you aren't just starting out in your working life, something is wrong.

?

That's why minimum wage is $9-something in San Francisco. It's an entry-level wage. It's right on the poverty line, but enough to live off of, and it is adjusted with inflation and costs of living. I still have yet to see what's wrong with minimum wage. No one has presented a reasonable argument. The unemployment rate argument doesn't have enough consistency to be able to suggest it with validity, and allowing employers to set their own price when they clearly value outsourcing to get people to work for cents on the hour is absolutely not a good idea.

As for wages, who is to tell someone else what they should be making? If someone wants to be an idiot and make minimum wage, who's to tell them they can't?

Edited September 14, 2008 by SRVT

[dalegg 143]

As for wages, who is to tell someone else what they should be making? If someone wants to be an idiot and make minimum wage, who's to tell them they can't?

Nodody is telling them they can't make minimum wage. What people are saying is that if you want to continue working a job that only pays minimum wage, don't complain that you can't support your family and claim that its your employer's responsibility to pick up the slack.

[IAMX 3,055]

As for wages, who is to tell someone else what they should be making? If someone wants to be an idiot and make minimum wage, who's to tell them they can't?

Nodody is telling them they can't make minimum wage. What people are saying is that if you want to continue working a job that only pays minimum wage, don't complain that you can't support your family and claim that its your employer's responsibility to pick up the slack.

There are also other factors into why someone would make minimum wage.

Who are usually working minimum wage jobs? Teenagers. Minorities. Low skill workers.

The suggestion you make is viable for someone who's in a good position like you, or me, to push themselves up the ladder quickly.

[dalegg 143]

As for wages, who is to tell someone else what they should be making? If someone wants to be an idiot and make minimum wage, who's to tell them they can't?

Nodody is telling them they can't make minimum wage. What people are saying is that if you want to continue working a job that only pays minimum wage, don't complain that you can't support your family and claim that its your employer's responsibility to pick up the slack.

There are also other factors into why someone would make minimum wage.

Who are usually working minimum wage jobs? Teenagers. Minorities. Low skill workers.

The suggestion you make is viable for someone who's in a good position like you, or me, to push themselves up the ladder quickly.

There may be other factors, but your question was relating to people who choose to make minimum wage, wasn't it?

[akdiver 3]

Well lets see, people get sick, people aren't robots who need to work every single day and need time off, as they have this thing called "family" and a "life", and yes, people at a very old age have a tough time working, so rather than let them die instead to let them reap the rewards of their contributions to society.

Wow...so, in other words, you DO think employers should be required to provide all this #######. Wow.

As for me, I simply don't think it is government's responsibility to take care of you, let alone your employer's.

[dalegg 143]

As for me, I simply don't think it is government's responsibility to take care of you, let alone your employer's.

You know this line pretty much answers the original question of the entire topic, I think.