Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by ncbullgator, Sep 2, 2014.
If the work ethic isn't dead, the numbers show it isn't rewarded:
Its the capitalist dream, people are working longer for lesser share of the rewards, all while being told they are lazy sacks of crap with little work ethic.
Doesn't that just show less people working more?
I'm not sure this data accounts for the size of the work force, its a survey/poll of a sample of people working. In any case though, its hard to say that work ethic is dead if you can get a job, you are probably putting more hours in than you would have 6-7 years ago. Moreover, it doesnt support the idea that the availablity of dissability makes people less inclined to work, or work hard either.
If it doesn't account for the size of the work force, which I don't think it did, I'm not sure we can garner anything from it really.
Doesn't that graph coincide with the growth/use of computers in just about everything. Just look at the size of companies accounting staffs now compared to before pcs. One person can handle a company of 400 and do all of their payroll and pay the bills where before it required many more.
Not really. The first computers were being used in business in the 1950s, but only in the largest corporations. they spread a little more in the 60s and 70s, but really took off in the 80s.
If the decoupling of wages and productivity was due to computers, it would have happened gradually, just as computers gradually entered the business world.
Anything to substantiate that?
disability insurance going up no doubt has to do with quite a few variables, including the loss of many jobs going overseas and to the busts of our economy....do the requirements need to be reigned in because people are taking advantage?...if so, do it. No questions asked.
but disability seems to be a reflection of much bigger forces than just a "loss of work ethic", but acknowledging that doesn't always suit the agenda...
Gallup need not determine the size of the workforce to survey folks about the hours they work. That is a different question and there is no imperative for them to have tried to determine it in this particular survey. Wouldn't be a bad ide to do so, just that it's not necessary.
OTOH, we certainly can garner knowledge from the aggregated responses. Of course, it's not the final word and all surveys have measurement error, but it helps to create the picture of what our working sector looks like, at least across the questions that they did ask.
True, but I was more replying to how it related to this thread. Showing that some people are working more hours is no correlation to the number of people working and people on disability. It shows that the people surveyed are working more hours, that is all. Do they have a strong work ethic? Sure. But there is no correlation between that and the general population as can be ascertained from the poll.
No doubt there are still plenty of people who are willing to work, often longer hours for no more money. Wages for so many have been flat, but lots of people still keep showing up everyday and working hard.
There are obviously more people on disability. Are more people really disabled, or are they just taking advantage of the system? I'd lean toward the latter.
Now, are more people happy to take disability when they could work because the number of those without integrity is growing, or have they always been there, but now the money is easier to get? That I don't know.
Got it. Agree in relation to the thread topic. On a related note, jus to throw it out there, while I do believe disability claims increases indicate some troubling issues, I am not convinced that it so clearly infers a worsening work ethic.
While they may well be guilty the figure cited seems a bit out of line to me. At an average of $1400 a month in benefits the claimant would have to be awarded almost two years back pay.
Possibly, or maybe they mainly take cases where people have been turned down a few times but have been trying for a long period of time.
Or I was thinking, they were just sacrificing the first year of disability pay (around 30k)
That would be equal to an average of $2500 a month. I don't think disability (federal) pays close to that.