no justice for the 'common' man
Today a close family friend dropped by and was talking to my dad, they've know each other since they were very young. She's a nurse and, I learned today, that she's also working for a family whose daughter is sick. She has two daughters and has been divorced since the last few years; she's been working her butt off to make ends meet for her family. I few years ago, when her and her ex-husband were still together, I heard her speaking to my dad about possibly filing for bankruptcy. When I was raising support for Argentina, I met with her and she said that she couldn't even give me $20 once because she, herself, was struggling with money for her and her family. She's a nurse, which means she's helps people in times when they can't help themselves, that's a necessary service, one that'll never go away (until Jesus comes back that is); why can't she afford to take care of her family?
A former professor told me that every state he and his family has ever lived in, they have qualified for welfare. Both he and his wife are teachers, you know people that teach the future of this country and others'? Why are they qualified for welfare from the very government they serve?
Does anyone else see a problem with the treatment of public servants?
I know what you're probably thinking: well of course you'd say that, you're a teacher and you have no money. But I'm not talking about just me. I'm talking about people that carry necessary jobs that help society run smoothly. People like: nurses, educators, doctors, public transportation drivers, janitors, etc.
Some time ago, I saw a little comic commenting on what society would look like if people were paid based off of their service to society. Teachers, nurses, and the like were driving luxury vehicles while pro-athletes were driving beat-up hoopties.
I simply don't think it's just that people who do so much for society get paid so little. It's not so much about the money as is the principle behind the money. When you are making a purchase you look at quality and price, and across the board the better quality something is the more it costs, right? The more useful something is, the more money it costs. If this is true for the very thing that drives our society, consumerism, why is this not true about the amount of money spent on the most useful things in society? Does this mean that people who provide necessary services should be millionaires? No. Truthfully, no one needs to be a millionaire. But I think it strange that people who play sports (something that's done as a hobby) get paid millions, billions even; yet the people that our society would collapse/deteriorate without, get paid chump-change. It just doesn't add up.
The USA is all about some global competitiveness, yet the area that'll make that happen is constantly being under funded. Hmm, that doesn't seem right. While this is happening, people who play games (athletes) are getting paid excessive amounts of money to play with a ball. That's dumb, especially since, many times the athletes aren't setting very good examples for those who look up to them.
I'm certainly an idealist, so I realize that as long as man is running the earth, things won't always be as they should be, or as I see fit. I'm just saying that it would be nice to live in a world where the money is distributed based off of usefulness and contribution to society.
A former professor told me that every state he and his family has ever lived in, they have qualified for welfare. Both he and his wife are teachers, you know people that teach the future of this country and others'? Why are they qualified for welfare from the very government they serve?
Does anyone else see a problem with the treatment of public servants?
I know what you're probably thinking: well of course you'd say that, you're a teacher and you have no money. But I'm not talking about just me. I'm talking about people that carry necessary jobs that help society run smoothly. People like: nurses, educators, doctors, public transportation drivers, janitors, etc.
Some time ago, I saw a little comic commenting on what society would look like if people were paid based off of their service to society. Teachers, nurses, and the like were driving luxury vehicles while pro-athletes were driving beat-up hoopties.
I simply don't think it's just that people who do so much for society get paid so little. It's not so much about the money as is the principle behind the money. When you are making a purchase you look at quality and price, and across the board the better quality something is the more it costs, right? The more useful something is, the more money it costs. If this is true for the very thing that drives our society, consumerism, why is this not true about the amount of money spent on the most useful things in society? Does this mean that people who provide necessary services should be millionaires? No. Truthfully, no one needs to be a millionaire. But I think it strange that people who play sports (something that's done as a hobby) get paid millions, billions even; yet the people that our society would collapse/deteriorate without, get paid chump-change. It just doesn't add up.
The USA is all about some global competitiveness, yet the area that'll make that happen is constantly being under funded. Hmm, that doesn't seem right. While this is happening, people who play games (athletes) are getting paid excessive amounts of money to play with a ball. That's dumb, especially since, many times the athletes aren't setting very good examples for those who look up to them.
I'm certainly an idealist, so I realize that as long as man is running the earth, things won't always be as they should be, or as I see fit. I'm just saying that it would be nice to live in a world where the money is distributed based off of usefulness and contribution to society.
Comments
Post a Comment