Quote from: JimBobOzAgain on the internet we've got someone saying, "oh my God, if it's not black, it must be purest white!" No, we have shades of grey.

Sorry if you took it that way.  I was merely describing vastly different situations from my own experiences of living in rural Pennsylvania to urban Hawaii.  I didn't mean for the way I grew up to be taken as the extreme of what you were talking about.  Different areas, different circumstances.  Agriculture is pretty much non-existant in Hawaii because of the cost of real estate.

Quote from: James J SkachSo you're not saying a person should do it, but if they don't, they're just lazy SOB's....

I mean it's cool if you're not intending to say that, but you just did.

You're assuming that I think people who could work, but don't, are lazy SOBs who should in some way be punished. I don't.

There aren't enough jobs to go around these days. So if someone doesn't want one, they shouldn't be forced to do it - they'll be taking the place of someone who really does want one. I'm happy to have the state pay people A$200 a week to do nothing. We already pay others thousands to do nothing. Hell, the CEO of Tabcorp (gambling corporation) was sacked because of the (relatively) poor stock performance of the company - and when sacked, got a "performance bonus" of A$3.3 million. He was sacked because of poor performance, but got a performance bonus. That'd be like being sacked for smacking someone in the head, but being given an Employee of the Month certificate on the way out. When millions and billions are being wasted on rich bastards who don't deserve or need it, I honestly can't find it in myself to worry about a few hundred bucks wasted on some guy who'd rather watch Oprah for $200 than dig ditches for $450. I just don't care.

Likewise, I don't care if you'd rather buy your food for four hours' wages in work than grow it for two hours' work. Good for you.

That's why I said, a person who can and doesn't produce their own food is no better or worse than one who can and doesn't earn their own money. If you allow that one is okay to do, you must allow the other; if you condemn one, you must condemn the other. I say that both are okay to do, but they're not okay for me.

I have nothing to add to this discussion except a reminiscence about my college days and the food intake of my roommate and myself.  Those with weak constitutions may wish to leave the thread now.

(Note: this was our second year in the dorms, so our self-abuse was aided by the stupidly overpriced cafeteria.)

Breakfast was eggs, half a dozen or more, backed up with half a pound of bacon plus whatever sausage seemed to call to you.  Biscuits went next, piled in a cereal bowl and doused in gravy.  Donuts (no more than two, that would be gluttony) filled out the tray and it was on to the drink station for two glasses of skim milk.  Cereal optional.

Lunch varied.  One of my favorites was three Burger King double cheeseburgers, a quart of skim milk and a king-size peanut butter Twix.

Dinner was where true eating happened.  We had a system based on the flow of the cafeteria crowds:

   Upon entry, we sized up the night's menu for high-demand items.  (Things like chicken-fried steak and pork chops often caused a run on the entree line, and forced us to change our priorities around.)  Then it was time to make a beeline for the barbecue line, where you might score TWO chicken quarters if you flirted with the girl serving them up.  The Chicken Plate, as it was known, was rounded out with green beans and mashed potatoes.  A short, brisk walk would slide you into the pasta line for a plate of spaghetti and meatballs.  Seats were picked out and the trays laid down.

Now for main dishes!  Main dish lines were handled with a sort of faceless efficiency; you took what you could get.  The secret was to turn down offers of side dishes, leaving space open for the next leg of your trip: the vegetarian line.  The vegetarian line always always always had the best side dishes (lentils and casseroles and greens and sweet potatoes...), with which you would load down your tray.

Laden with a main dish plate and a side dish plate, it was time to return to your seats.  After snagging two glasses of skim, you were ready to eat.

Once your plates were empty and piled on your tray, it was time for a stop at the cereal station for a bowl of Cinnamon Toast Crunch.  Then you could waddle home with pride.

On weekend nights, flush with cash, it might be a pizza night. One large with pepperoni apiece, a loaf of cheese bread and a box of wings between us.


We were doing weight training in the gym, impromptu workouts with sandbags and dumbbells in the dorm room, hiding large rocks around campus for use as testing stones...  The good life.  (Yes, we still got fat as all hell. )

Nowadays my old roomie's a sprinter with single digit bodyfat.  I'm a grotesquely obese boxer.  At least I have a sense of humor about it.

If I ate like that even one day a week nowadays I think I'd vaporize on the spot.  It's good we're not 19 forever or we'd die of burnout at 30.

Side note: I told my mother about how we were eating at the time, and she threw up in her mouth.

Quote from: JimBobOzYou're assuming that I think people who could work, but don't, are lazy SOBs who should in some way be punished.I don't.

Fair enough, JimBob.  I'd like to point out that I'm fairly comfortable in saying that is not a majority opinion - particularly in a board with so many Americans on it.  I know your feeling on Americans, so I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, but we here in the states tend to think that way.  I only bring it up because you seem to attempt to be clear in your writing - part of which is understanding your audience, yeah?  And so it might be good to be more clear in this regard.  I understand you used the term "no better or worse than" which would be, in kindness, daming with feint praise (at best).

Quote from: JimBobOzThat's why I said, a person who can and doesn't produce their own food is no better or worse than one who can and doesn't earn their own money. If you allow that one is okay to do, you must allow the other; if you condemn one, you must condemn the other. I say that both are okay to do, but they're not okay for me.

This is not the same as me working and earning money to buy food - you know, the modern trading system that replaced barter lo these many years ago. The equivalent of your able-bodied-but-unwilling-to-work individual would be someone who did not work to produce their own food and expected to be fed by others without exchanging something of value.

Just so we can be clear.  You're not talking about charity for those who can't do for themselves. You're saying it's OK to be able to do something but not, and comparing that with someone pays someone else to do something for them - exchanging something of value in return for the work done. Is that a fair summary of what you've written?

Quote from: JimBobOzHell, the CEO of Tabcorp (gambling corporation) was sacked because of the (relatively) poor stock performance of the company - and when sacked, got a "performance bonus" of A$3.3 million. He was sacked because of poor performance, but got a performance bonus.

Actually, according to the Sydney Morning Herald it wasn't a performance bonus, but rather a payout amounting to a year's salary in lieu of notice.  

QuoteThat's why I said, a person who can and doesn't produce their own food is no better or worse than one who can and doesn't earn their own money.

Huh??  Sitting on your bum all day watching TV and expecting to be funded by other taxpayers is no better or worse than someone who busts their arse working a 50 hour week earning money and then buys their food rather than producing it themself?

I must be missing your meaning, because that is seriously fucked up.

Quote from: James J SkachFair enough, JimBob.  I'd like to point out that I'm fairly comfortable in saying that is not a majority opinion - particularly in a board with so many Americans on it.  I know your feeling on Americans, so I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, but we here in the states tend to think that way.  

  If I remember correctly , JimBobOz lived in America for several years in the past  and either has relatives over here or good friends that still live in the states.
 I've never noticed him having any unusual bias about America one way or the other.

- E.W.C.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkActually, according to the Sydney Morning Herald it wasn't a performance bonus, but rather a payout amounting to a year's salary in lieu of notice.  

Same shit, different shovel. It's still three million bucks. Quite a fucking lot for someone who's supposedly being sacked for fucking up.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkHuh??  Sitting on your bum all day watching TV and expecting to be funded by other taxpayers is no better or worse than someone who busts their arse working a 50 hour week earning money and then buys their food rather than producing it themself?

It's rare that the dole bludger is a lifelong one. Typically, whatever they're drawing in dole they already more than paid out in taxes, and/or will in future. It more than comes out even; if it didn't, we'd have a federal deficit, not a surplus.

When so much public money is going to rich idle people, I simply can't get upset about the far smaller sums going to poor idle people. The issue, from my point of view, is the morality or immorality of being idle and relying on others for what you need or want in your life.

It's nowhere written that a person has to "bust their arse working a 50 hour week." That's a choice. If you want to complain about having to fund (by way of your taxes) someone else's personal choice to be poor and idle on the dole, then you can't really expect sympathy for your personal choice to bust your bum working a 50 hour week. Either we're supposed to indulge by money and time and sympathy others' personal choices, or we're not.

Commonly, working for cash while complaining frequently about the long hours you do is considered more noble than working on unpaid tasks - like growing your own food, or looking after your kids. Being rich and idle and being sustained by public funds is considered more noble than being poor and idle and sustained by public funds. I think those assessments are wrong.

Paying up for lazy fuckers - whether it's some drongo on the dole in Broadmeadows, or some confused CEO - is just part of the friction of the machinery of society. I can't get too excited about it, really. It's like Adam Smith said, whatever you do, a good part of the country's wealth is going to go to supporting the idle. Shit happens.

Thing is, not too many years from now everyone's going to have to be growing at least some of their food, we won't be able to afford to transport it from miles away.

Self-reliance is a good thing - in cash, in food, water, whatever you can manage. 'Course, you have to make compromises with the other people in your life.

Quote from: JimBobOzSame shit, different shovel. It's still three million bucks. Quite a fucking lot for someone who's supposedly being sacked for fucking up.

Being the CEO of a major corporatation is one of the more brutal jobs going around.  High stress, long hours and typically a non-supportive board.  In my experience, no company will execute major strategy without approval from board members.  And yet, when things go badly, the CEO is usually the one with his head on the chopping block.  Plus, you can expect every single one of your fuck-ups to be widely publicised.  

Is it worth millions of dollars?

Well, it must.  Companies wouldn't pay CEOs multi-million dollar salaries if they didn't have to.  Afterall, Tabcorp pay their CEO $3M+ and they still couldn't get a decent one.  Similarly, I always find it funny when people bitch about how much politicians earn.  Imagine the caliber of political candidates you'd get if you paid them even less.

QuoteWhen so much public money is going to rich idle people, I simply can't get upset about the far smaller sums going to poor idle people. The issue, from my point of view, is the morality or immorality of being idle and relying on others for what you need or want in your life.

You're either shifting your stance or not making yourself clear.  You were basically comparing someone who can work, but chooses not to (idle) with someone who works for a living (not idle) and then uses money to buy food rather than grow it themselves.  

The fact that working a 50 hour week is a choice is irrelevant to the discussion.  I choose to work a desk job because that's the most productive use of my skills.  My knowledge and experience with farming is absolutely nill.  I'm pretty sure I could pick up the basics, but it would take a lot of time and practice.  Far better for me to pay a skilled farmer to do it for me.  Division of labour and all the jazz...

Apparently, though, because I choose not to grow my own food, my contribution to society is no better or worse than someone on the dole who chooses not to work at all.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkBeing the CEO of a major corporatation is one of the more brutal jobs going around.  High stress, long hours and typically a non-supportive board.  

Yeah, must be real hard stuff. That must be why we hear all these stories of people turning down the chance to do it. A bit like the people who tell us how it's harder to be wealthy than be poor... yet strangely they don't give away all their wealth and then become poor. Funny, that.

Quote from: Tyberious Funk[...] when things go badly, the CEO is usually the one with his head on the chopping block.  Plus, you can expect every single one of your fuck-ups to be widely publicised.  

Is it worth millions of dollars?

I dunno. I figure, people cop the blame for failures not their fault, lose their job and get a bad rep and find it hard to get the next job without getting millions of bucks, so...

Quote from: Tyberious FunkWell, it must.  Companies wouldn't pay CEOs multi-million dollar salaries if they didn't have to.

Wouldn't they? Australian CEOs are among the highest-paid in the world. Japanese, German, Scandanavian CEOs manage to struggle by on mere hundreds of thousands of bucks. Are their economices in the poo compared to ours? Well, no. Could it be... someone made a choice, a chose to pay them heaps? Could it be that they'd like to set a precedent, just in case they're in that position some day? Or perhaps the board members would like a nice raise, too - and figure, "Well, if the CEO is getting $5 million, then we can justify $1 million each, a bit harder if he's only getting $250,000."

Quote from: Tyberious FunkSimilarly, I always find it funny when people bitch about how much politicians earn.  Imagine the caliber of political candidates you'd get if you paid them even less.

We've got a high calibre type now? What's the money got to do with it? By this reasoning, all nannies must be better parents than natural mothers, because natural mothers are paid nothing. Could it be that money's not everything?

The Aussie Army's been raising pay steadily for years, yet still can't get enough recruits. Could it be that money's not everything?

Quote from: Tyberious FunkApparently, though, because I choose not to grow my own food, my contribution to society is no better or worse than someone on the dole who chooses not to work at all.

Who said anything about contributions to society? I'm talking about a different thing - the virture of self-reliance. Let's face it, the work that most of us does contributes nothing to society. One guy works in an office making web pages prettier, another makes some nice meals, another spends 18 months making software for a gambling company which they decide won't be profitable enough and ditch. How have we improved people's lives?

The people really contributing things to society are people like parents, people inventing and promoting things like solar ovens, so that some refugee woman doesn't have to spend half her food ration buying firewood to cook the other half, people giving jobs to someone who's been unemployed for ten years, people making great music or organising festivals or community work, that sort of thing. Those are people who improve other people's quality of life and happiness. That's a contribution to society, not crap like most of us do.

Most of us neither contribute nor remove anything from society. We're net zeroes.

And just paying taxes isn't, usually, that big a deal as a contribution. For all we complain, we get a lot of services for that money. We might quibble about this or that bit of spending, but on the whole we have roads, primary and tertiary education, healthcare, free advice on everything from nutrition to agriculture, utilities, subsidies to companies which then employ us so that we've a wage to pay taxes from, etc.

Most of us neither contribute nor subtract anything from society, overall, whether it's 50 hours a week sweating in the kitchen or 30 hours a week slumped around watching telly. We do what's good for ourselves.

I'm hearing a lot of the "protestant work ethic" here. I'm more of a, "I don't bother anyone else, so I hope they won't bother me," sort of guy. If that takes a few thousand of my taxes each year, well then so be it. That doesn't change what I think is good for a person as an individual - which is, self-reliance in cash, food, utilities, etc. We do what's good for ourselves - and I think it's good for ourselves to be self-reliant.

You don't have to be some kind of expert to grow some of your own food. It requires even less brains than being a chef, and that, I can tell you, requires no fucking brains at all