The Earth Is Full

**MizMotown** · June-10-11, 09:27 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/op...me&ref=general

......We will realize, he predicts, that the consumer-driven growth model is broken and we have to move to a more happiness-driven growth model, based on people working less and owning less. “How many people,” Gilding asks, “lie on their death bed and say, ‘I wish I had worked harder or built more shareholder value,’ and how many say, ‘I wish I had gone to more ballgames, read more books to my kids, taken more walks?’ To do that, you need a growth model based on giving people more time to enjoy life, but with less stuff.”

Sounds utopian? Gilding insists he is a realist.

“We are heading for a crisis-driven choice,” he says. “We either allow collapse to overtake us or develop a new sustainable economic model. We will choose the latter. We may be slow, but we’re not stupid.”

**Papasito** · June-10-11, 03:27 PM

It would be nice if we didn't have to work 60-90 hours a week to make a decent living. It would be even nicer if we didn't have to do this until we die, with never having the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of our hard labor.

**maxx** · June-10-11, 09:02 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...-than-we-think

"...As a labor lawyer, I think the U.S.-Europe gap is understated. In the U.S., with no labor movement or government to enforce limits on hours, it’s impossible to get an honest count. Read Kim Bobo’s "Wage Theft," documenting the staggering number of Americans who work for free, extra hours, for no pay. Employers here turn in fictitious numbers. “Oh, but we have phone surveys to correct for it.” Come on: who’s going to rat on the boss on a cold call?..."

**Relayer76** · June-10-11, 11:26 PM

I worked for an employer that was open to flex time. When my kids were young I worked 4 instead of 5 days and got 80% pay [[2 income family). I worked really hard the 4 days I was there and always ensured I had something to delegate to the clerical area on my day off. So basically I did the same job for 20% less pay with a little delegation to lower paid staff. It was good for my employer, good for my sanity and good for my kids. The loss of 20% of my pay put me in a lower tax bracket and I had more time to cook and freeze meals for the rest of the week resulting in $ savings and healthier eating.

**GOAT** · June-11-11, 09:52 AM

we had flex time. But now we are all stuck with GPS's and inane entering of useless stats for the fucking bean counters.

They still say, "family" is the most important thing yet they want me to be in accounts from 8-5 and then do all my paperwork [[about 3 hours a day) on my own time.

But hey, like so many employers say "if you don't like it find another job." Fucking assholes!!

**jackie5275** · June-11-11, 05:23 PM

It's all greed driven too. We've essentially gone back in time 110 years when everyone worked to help the businesses, the bosses, & the rich get richer. The whole concept of growing wealth has taken over our society. Yet the only ones benefitting are those who were rich to begin with, & they're benefitting from those of us working massive amounts of hours, staying connected by cell phone or laptop when away from the job, bringing work home, or not getting any vacation or sick time at all.

**maxx** · June-11-11, 07:10 PM

http://thenewpress.com/index.php?opt...productid=1767

"...In what has been described as “the crime wave no one talks about,” billions of dollars worth of wages are stolen from millions of workers in the United States every year—a grand theft that exceeds every other larceny category on record annually. Between two and three million workers are paid less than the legal minimum wage. More than three million are misclassified by their employers as independent contractors when they are really employees, allowing employers to shirk their share of payroll taxes and illegally deny workers overtime pay. Even the Economic Policy Foundation, a business-funded think tank, estimated that companies annually steal $19 billion in unpaid overtime..."

**Papasito** · July-28-11, 07:56 AM

I don't understand how the left complains that the "Earth is full" [[I'm referring to the Environmental movement) and humanity is at the Earth's capacity, while they expect the Government to bear the cost for millions and mllions of children to be born.. Medicaid sponsors the births of illegal immigrants and the poor, and the births of children belonging to those who know how to work the system. [[Trust me, I've seen the Escalades and Lexuses at the Pediatrician's office, and the women paying with a Medicaid card while wearing diamonds and gold). Having a litter of children is rewarded with free Government money, affordable housing, and a slew of benefits.

They should be pushing for free IUD's http://www.plannedparenthood.org/hea...l/iud-4245.htm and pregnancy prevention! http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/
After all, the Earth is straining, right?
More people are going to hurt the Earth, right?

Then stop supporting candidates who support funding the Earth's overpopulation.

Steve bennet · July-28-11, 09:42 AM

If I had a job making 80,000 a year, I'd prefer to just work part time and take home 40,000 instead. Working sucks, and money isn't that important to me. I would be quite happy and comfortable at 40,000.

**oladub** · July-28-11, 10:22 AM

In the 50's, one person worked 40 hours a week to support a family. That was the norm. Now it is difficult to maintain the same standard of living with one wage earner. Some things changed along the way. Things seem to have become more complicated. The dollar has collapsed so that housing, medicine, education and other basics have become more expensive in terms of hours worked to pay for such things. 'Keeping up with the Jones' is part of the problem. I doubt that many will opt out of the rat race. Who wants crummy schools for their kids or to economically be forced to live in a high crime area? Who wants to show up at a suburban BBQ with an old beater?

Still, I do know people who moved into the country where housing is cheaper and food can be grown who home school their kids and get by with an old van. They get by, these are actual examples, with doing carpentry, raising organic crops for sale, renting cabins, making willow furniture, jewelry, or taking a job in town that doesn't pay anywhere near city wages. Those are some options you have.

Then [[ I'm radically changing the subject here) we are communally in competition with other cultures who work much harder than we do. Let's say, we all dedicated ourselves to more ballgames, reading, taking more walks, or more likely, spending more time on the computer like I'm doing now. Meanwhile, Chinese are working their butts off developing their technology to surpass us. What then? I think we will find out soon enough.

**Ray1936** · July-28-11, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Steve bennet

If I had a job making 80,000 a year, I'd prefer to just work part time and take home 40,000 instead. Working sucks, and money isn't that important to me. I would be quite happy and comfortable at 40,000.

Depends, Steve. In my 29 years with the DPD, I looked forward to going to work each and every day. Especially in the early years, I hated having a vacation. Was afraid I'd miss something. Worked OT at every opportunity, and it wasn't really for the extra money. It all depends on the job itself, I suppose.

Otherwise, had I been a grunt of some kind or on an assembly line, I'd totally agree with your view.

**Det_ard** · July-28-11, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by oladub

In the 50's, one person worked 40 hours a week to support a family. That was the norm. Now it is difficult to maintain the same standard of living with one wage earner. Some things changed along the way. Things seem to have become more complicated. The dollar has collapsed so that housing, medicine, education and other basics have become more expensive in terms of hours worked to pay for such things. 'Keeping up with the Jones' is part of the problem. I doubt that many will opt out of the rat race. Who wants crummy schools for their kids or to economically be forced to live in a high crime area? Who wants to show up at a suburban BBQ with an old beater?

I agree in part, but take a hard look at 50's standard of living. One car [[worn out by 100K miles, needing much more maintenance than a current car, with much less MPG, power, comfort, technology, reliability, etc.). 1100 sqft house. No walk-in closets full of clothes. One B/W TV. No A/C. Rudimentary medical care by today's standards. Eat 98% of meals at home. Snow shovels, not snow blowers. A lot less "stuff". Repairing, not replacing things. Having one of an item, not five.

Housing I'd argue is more affordable today, at least in non-coastal areas.You can buy a home for 3.5% down, interest rate under 5% and a mortgage payment that's less than one week's pay. Today's medical care is much more expensive but it's lightyears ahead of what it was in the 50's. It's hard to compare something that's improved so radically. Education on the other hand isn't radically better but it is radically more expensive.

On balance, if we were willing to live like its 1955 it wouldn't cost too much. But we keep ratcheting up our expectations and it gets more expensive to have it all.

Steve bennet · July-28-11, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by Ray1936

Depends, Steve. In my 29 years with the DPD, I looked forward to going to work each and every day. Especially in the early years, I hated having a vacation. Was afraid I'd miss something. Worked OT at every opportunity, and it wasn't really for the extra money. It all depends on the job itself, I suppose.

Otherwise, had I been a grunt of some kind or on an assembly line, I'd totally agree with your view.

Doing something you enjoy definitely helps. I suppose if I had a job/career I loved, I might be a workaholic, however I wouldn't want to stress myself out either.

**Detroitnerd** · July-29-11, 01:29 PM

It's not the population, it's the distribution of wealth and resources. The population scare is designed to make us think we must solve the problem by attrition. Going after the gangsters at the top is the real solution.

**barnesfoto** · July-30-11, 10:52 AM

^^^what he said.

**3WC** · July-30-11, 06:31 PM

Detroitterd: You claim the solution is to go after the "gangsters at the top." Well, I and thousands of others could be classified as "at the top." We got there by working our asses off, taking sometimes monumental risks, making many sacrifices when times were tough, and paying our employees more than the prevailing wage when we could, and always treating them fairly. We reinvested most of our profits and lived conservative and responsible lives. Yet you call us gangsters.

You sound like someone who's made lousy choices, is bitter, and is defeated by life, blaming others for your real or perceived plight. Stop blaming others and get off your ass.

**Jimaz** · July-30-11, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by 3WC

Yet you call us gangsters.

He didn't call you a gangster. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it so eagerly.

**barnesfoto** · July-31-11, 02:31 AM

[QUOTE]Stop blaming others and get off your ass./QUOTE]

Were you frantically working as you typed that, or were you sitting on your ass typing on an internet forum?...There seems to be an endless supply of people in this country who blather endlessly about "hard work" while doing little. The greatest example is our ex-president, whose resume is an endless list of failures, with long gaps of doing nothing between failures....

**Pam** · July-31-11, 07:04 AM

It's not the population, it's the distribution of wealth and resources

I think it is both.

**Papasito** · August-01-11, 01:00 PM

population control should be taken seriously
more people means more resources

**Detroitnerd** · August-01-11, 01:04 PM

What they said.

**barnesfoto** · August-02-11, 02:51 AM

population control should be taken seriously

translation: It was ok for me to breed, but not those [[insert made up bullshit about illegal immigrants and welfare here). [[Original poster is very busy, working very hard, has time to make thousands of posts, but no time to do actual research).

**Papasito** · November-07-11, 01:59 PM

Once we all have electric cars, the Earth will become clean and pure again...
Those electric cars that we plug into electricity that is powered by coal from those coal power plants and nuclear power plants that are being shut down.
But that's ok, we can build wind farms and solar farms that are inefficient and subsidised by our tax dollars.

... Right?

**TKshreve** · November-07-11, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Papasito

Once we all have electric cars, the Earth will become clean and pure again...
Those electric cars that we plug into electricity that is powered by coal from those coal power plants and nuclear power plants that are being shut down.
But that's ok, we can build wind farms and solar farms that are inefficient and subsidised by our tax dollars.

... Right?

Yeah I never realized those are the only forms of wasted subsidies of our tax dollars.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...tsourcing.html

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...an-oil-subsidy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...orate-jet-tax/

Can I nominate your post for the most misleading, uninformed post of the year?

Speaking of energy efficiencies: Hows that whole cleaning up of the GULF OF MEXICO tidbit helping out BP's bottom line? All that fucking money wasted to clean up something that should have never happened. You probably think it was worth it......pff

**old guy** · November-07-11, 05:14 PM

Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life.
Confucious

I would disagree with parts of the article. We have the technology right now to feed possibly ten times the current population of the earth. We just don't. We need to get off the supply and demand crap.

It's going to take some work, but we have the ability to take care of all the people on the planet. The only thing we're currently lacking is compassion.