It's not what you literally said, but is it not what you implied?
That is not what I wanted to imply, may be a case of how text is reading vs what an in person conversation would be.
So there's no responsibility for the government, community, family members, etc. to assist those who are struggling or may not be aware of the resources that exist out there?
There is responsibility for lots of entities, I just don't have full reliance in all these systems helping people out and encourage people to do what they can to be self reliant.
But then you undercut those same things by still basically blaming these people for their lot in life, and put all of the fault on the individual.
Some people to get a bad deck of cards stacked against them in life, but I don't see their local governments going to bat for them. So at the end of the day only they can help themselves.
While I agree, education requires time and money, something you seem to be assuming everyone has, when that is not the case.
I mentioned loans, employer funded education programs, and slowly doing online course work already.
Perhaps this is a personal failing, but I understand, to some extent, why some people refuse good advice. For one, advice is often given when it's not solicited, or the advice is outdated, condescending, or otherwise not delivered well. People think they can just throw advice in the air like confetti and it will automatically reach its intended target and have its intended effect, unless the person is a moron, but effective advice is:
1) advice the person receiving it is actually receptive to. This is key. If the person you're giving advice to isn't ready to hear it, there's a 99% chance the other person won't take it. And
2) advice that is well-delivered, and tailored to the person receiving it, at least in how it's approached.
Very true. Certainly no one wants advice if they aren't asking for it. But to the people complaining to LA Times or OC Register about how hard their struggles are, lets hope they are open to some helpful advice. If they aren't then they are just finding an avenue to complain I guess?
Perhaps your life has been different than my own, but I literally have family members whose basic form of communication is to shout unsolicited advice at me continuously without taking any time to learn about my interests, my circumstances, etc, and I have to be honest, after a lifetime of this, I just tune it out.
That sounds very frustrating and definitely isn't helpful at all.
They may be well intentioned, but it comes off to me as patronizing, like there's nothing I can possibly do to ever win this person's approval or get them to understand my circumstances, so their advice gets tuned out. So even though their intentions, on paper, are good, because of how they deliver their advice, I'm unlikely to receive the good advice they DO occasionally give. I imagine I can't be the only person in the world that has made a habit of rejecting condescending, unsolicited advice, and so I understand, on some level, why this happens, even if it can be against one's own best interest. Does it mean I absolve those individuals of responsibility? No. But on some level, I get where some of them may be coming from.
ln my case there are Individuals in my family circle that complain about issues and ask for help regularly but then turn down advice or opportunities that would assist them in the future.
I think it's important to help someone who is drowning but know to stop if they start pulling you under with them.
If these same people refuse your well intentioned advice but then try to go after you for your time and money, at some point you feel less bad for them.
Some predicaments are random or based on luck but some people do regularly put themselves in bad circumstances even when offered a life line.
If a group of longtime themepark employees want to complain about their cost of living and wages but wouldn't be open to advice on how improve their living situation then I have no idea how to fix their circumstances.
I think we have the same solution, it just comes across to me like you're undercutting your own solution to play the blame game.
Again I'm just being realistic on how someone could take steps TODAY to improve their situation. Waiting for Disney co to triple the pay of their employees so they can buy an Anaheim condo isn't likely to happen any way I see it.
But that doesn't mean I side with Disney. Facts are they are paying what the labor market will take and are responsible for giving returns to their shareholders.
Perhaps not your intent, but that's how it reads to me. I do think legislation and a strong government COULD do something; what is the point of a government if they're not going to make an effort to help anyone achieve things, especially when there are documented shortages in key industries?
I don't see much of our "representatives" actually working on looking out for their people, but it would be nice if they did.
Nonetheless, while staffing shortages around the park have improved, it is still glaring to me that pre-covid, Carthay was open for lunch and dinner. Yet since park reopening, Carthay has been dinner only. The only explanation for this in my head is staffing, because even if the menu has changed for the worse, if Carthay was open for lunch, people would eat there. So it's literally Disney leaving money on the table because of their inability to fully staff Carthay.
But again they didn't have the Al Fresco Dining option back then so it may be an equal trade off. I do think it's the menu though IMO (it has at least stopped me from going back). Either the demand isn't there or it could be staffing like you said.
Is it not defending Disney if you're basically saying that these people are idiots for sticking around?
No because this is not a Disney problem, the recent article isn't even about Disney. It's an issue with people sticking aroung in minimum wage jobs.
These companies aren't forcing anyone to stay in these jobs for extended periods of time. Both things can be true, the companies can be greedy and the people
can be making bad choices by staying around expecting more.
The implication there is if people are going to be suckers and keep staying there for dirt pay, what incentive does Disney have to change?
There is no incentive to change which is why it's not a good career choice.
As I said in a different post, I do think it's interesting how many companies seemingly cannot understand why they should pay their workers more, to result in a better, more satisfied workforce which would then result in a better experience for guests.
Until things like this hurt a company's bottom line they can continue to use minimum wage jobs. Universal and Disney parks though are doing very well.
I agree that on paper it should be, but I think you're underestimating how hectic things are for a lot of families and what additional obligations they may have.
I'm not a parent, so I probably shouldn't make assumptions here, but I think that some absolutely would require child care regardless. Perhaps a small percentage, but not all children or parents or families are the same.
Online coursework is the perfect option, most are only a few hours of work at most a week. A lot of online coursework is self paced and does not require a time
comitment:
I don't know the situation fully either, but I was a bit shocked to read that. I do think a 77 year old is a bit disadvantaged looking for new opportunities in the workforce and that it's fair to acknowledge that there's a big difference between someone in their twenties or thirties looking for a new position and someone much older.
That's very true, the workforce is not kind to senior employees at all and opportunities are limited.
My own mother got laid off in 2020 in her late fifties, and I know that she really struggled to find any footing in a job market where opportunities that would have appealed to her were limited by retirement-related stipulations, and despite the prohibition on age-related employment discrimination, no company really wants to hire anyone nearing or past retirement age-particularly the "right" companies that offer better pay and benefits. She also saw firsthand how the job application process had changed radically from when she was last looking for a position (around 2000), and not in the job seeker's favor, at least IMO and hers. Ultimately she decided to focus on caring for her aging parents instead of seeking a new position and ride out the next few years until those benefits acrued from her previous job start kicking in. So while I don't know Phroobar's mother's situation firsthand, my first instinct is to have empathy for her situation rather than assume that an elderly woman is simply lazy for not grabbing at better opportunities. I mean, let's be real here: how many better opportunities really exist for 77 year olds? I know that occasionally you'll see those "80 year old grandmother has just earned a PH.D" sorts of articles, but the reason those articles get published is because it's an anomaly at that point for such things to happen. I'd love to be proven wrong, truly, but I'm having trouble at understanding what a person in that situation is really supposed to do. Life expectancy for women in the US right now is 79.3 years. While one doesn't ever really know how long an individual will live, I can understand Mom's refusal at that point to try something else.
So sorry to hear what happened to your mother and that sounds so rough, again the workforce is not kind to seniors.
Not sure about the other poster's situation but it could be a case of someone throughout their life making poor choices and it culminating in them living in a bad situation.
Anyways people are probably tired of seeing me go back and forth on this but I appreciate and respect you and your discussion points. I think even if we sometimes have different stances we actually are more or less on the same page and want what's best for people:
