LogFAQs > #954056204

piUrsEitanizm posted...

Well, I think at large it's because we gave up on the bottom up style economy and are suffering the vast extra growth we'd have in the career world because more people could afford many different services and things in life that would keep the economy thriving..

While many can still get a degree and a job, I'd say that the real reason why thats still as possible as it is, is more due to the struggle to get a higher education be it financially and or because of those who were not cut out for a higher education.

To me that proves not only that the economy would have been far better if it kept the old bottom up style economy rather than trickle down, but that most likely not that many people are actually lazy but that maybe a large chunk of those who appear lazy are really rather depressed and find the task of achieving success as too daunting for them.

But yeah, I believe most things would not have became that way if we had instead chosen to keep a bottom up economy.

I blame greed.

America is hardly lacking in consumerism. Adding to it means little if the jobs are in China. You scrape the problem but still miss it.

On the employer side, they've gotten entitled. It's less about money than in expecting ideal employees for little effort. 4 out of 5 jobs aren't even markets outside a company, and what's left makes any excuse to not take employees without positive attitudes and a strong focus on people skills. That leaves introverts (half the population) depressed people, disabled, and more at a strong disadvantage for any job that isn't begging for anyone for minimum wage. Instead of creating jobs to find those personalities, or at least trying to train and mold us into what they want, the expectation is that we just spontaneously morph into what they want. Thus the labor market is a lot of square pegs trying to be forced into round holes.

The employee side has its own entitlement issues. They think they're entitled to the cost benefits made by automating their jobs, not that we kind of sent as many people to post secondary as possible to get jobs in fields that require higher education, not fight for who gets paid to serve burgers or stand over automated processes. Granted, that was probably going to be a failed plan in the long run, but I think we've honestly lost the ambition to be anything more than the least we have to be. And yes, that's because of that world that seems to give us a single path to success and little respect for what others can bring, and we're kind of leaning into it. I see plenty of people wanting to just stay home, making promises of what they could achieve, rather than ask for the chance to show what they can achieve.

---

I'm not saying that less toxic gaming journalists would lead to less toxic gamers. I'm just saying there's no proof to the contrary.