Poll:- life better now or in 1959?

[SirJosephPorter]

"LIFE better now or 1959?"

What does life require to be better? Happiness

Do we have better food? No

Do we have better water? No

Do we have better air? No

So tell me, is Is life better now or in 1959? 1959

Really? Do you have any evidence for that, or is this again your ‘anecdotal' experience? Seeing that there have been so many scientific, technological advances, my assumption would be that all these things are better today. If you have any statistics, put them up.

Anyway, we can see that food is better today without any statistics. Go to any town, even a small town and one has selection of a wide variety of cuisines, Indonesian, Jamaican, Indian, Korean, Thai, Italian, and others too numerous to mention. What did we have 50 years ago? Meat and potatoes?

Food is definitely better today. 50 years ago all we had was the British and American cooking; today we have a wide variety of cuisines, a wide variety of dishes available.

Also, go to super market and there are a wide variety of exotic fruits available from all over the world, which were unheard of in those days. Mango (ever tried alphonso mangoes from India? A more fragrant, more delicious fruit cannot be imagined), guava, Sharon fruit, dragon fruit (from China), red bananas etc. Seedless water melon was unheard of in those days.

As to water, with advance detection and purification techniques available today compared to 50 years ago, I would be surprised indeed if water quality isn’t better today. Same goes for air. These days we have pollutions standards, we have permissible limits for most pollutants, I don’t recall any such limits in those days, people, businesses were free to pollute to their heart's content.

So I have reasons to think that water, food and air are definitely better today. But if you have statistics to the contrary, put them up.

 

[petros]

Evidence?

I don't consider a better filtre to be better water.

I don't consider animal foods that need enhanced protein/ fermented carbohydrate diets and vitamin supplements to replace natural diets to be better.

I don't consider crop plants that can't survive without large doses of NH3 right to the roots and glycosphate to be better.

I don't consider "stay indoor advisories" because of air pollution to be better.

I don't consider nearly unstoppable mutated disease pandemics like MRSA to be better.

Do you?

 

[TenPenny]

"LIFE better now or 1959?"

Do we have better food? No

Do we have better water? No

Do we have better air? No

So tell me, is Is life better now or in 1959? 1959

Food - we have more/easier/cheaper access to a variety of foods than we did in 1959; indeed, all winter long, we can get fresh produce. Even the frozen vegetables we get now are far superior to the canned stuff of 1959. The average person has access to far better nutrition now than they did in 1959.

Water - most cities have far better water treatment systems than in 1959.

Air - most industrial plants have far superior pollution control, and the number of houses burning coal for heat is far less than in 1959, so the air quality is better from that point of view, but because of population growth, the number of cars on the road is huge, so air pollution is worse from that point of view.

Overall, I think life is better now.

 

[JLM]

I am a strong supporter of the minimum wage, JLM. I think it serves a very useful purpose in protecting the poor.

As to taxes, sure we pay proportionately more today. However, the difference between 16.522 $ and 39,738 $ is huge. No amount of taxation that we have is going to bring the figure of 39,738 down to lower than 16,522.

Even after deducting the taxes, people still are earning much more today (take home pay) than they did 50 years ago.

The minimum wage is one thing, to keep raising it (which I'm dead against is another) it doesn't help the poor it makes them worse off. I'll give you some arbitrary "statistics" to demonstrate and you like statistics. I run a company the builds widgets and have 5 five employees, one at minimum wage- $8 an hour, another at $10 an, another at $15 an hour, another at $20 an and one at $25 an hour. So now Mr. Top Sh*t Politician says that I have to up the minimum wages by 10%, so the M.W. employees goes up to $8.80 BUT that's not where it ends, the $10 an hours comes to me and says F**k you if I don't get 10% I'm quitting. So you give him $11 and the guy at $15 gets $16.50 and the guy at $20 gets $22 and the guy at $25 gets $27.50. So at that point I have to make a decision - do I up the price of widgets 10% or do I reduce my payroll costs by 10%, well the demand for widgets hasn't been exactly brisk lately so I decide to reduce pay rolls costs, I dump the $8 an hour employee and sweep the floor and make the coffee my self. THAT S.J. SHOULD BE VERY EASY FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Evidence?

I don't consider a better filtre to be better water.

I don't consider animal foods that need enhanced protein/ fermented carbohydrate diets and vitamin supplements to replace natural diets to be better.

I don't consider crop plants that can't survive without large doses of NH3 right to the roots and glycosphate to be better.

I don't consider "stay indoor advisories" because of air pollution to be better.

I don't consider nearly unstoppable mutated disease pandemics like MRSA to be better.

Do you?

These are isolated instances, Petros. And I don’t know where they have ‘stay indoors advisories’ in Canada, certainly I have not heard about them here in Ontario. If it happens because of say a truck had an accident and spilled something toxic, again, that would be an isolated instance.

And water purity can be measured scientifically. That is why I asked, do you have any statistics to compare water quality 50 years ago and today? If not, we really cannot resolve the issue. But I stand by my opinion. Considering the advances made in detection techniques (for pollutants) and purification techniques, in my opinion, water is of higher quality today that of 50 years ago.

As to crops, how does their nutritional value compare with the crops of the old times? What you are expressing here is your subjective, anecdotal experience, and you are welcome to it. But that does not really give us an objective, scientific answer.

 

[JLM]

Anna - we can never win an argument about which is the better life- some base it solely on material possessions and the outlay of money. Others base it on things like safety in the community and work place, having well adjusted children, having clean air and parks and having understanding and loyal friends. It boils down to things like the simple concept of whether you want to live in a "house" or do you want to live in a "home". You can have a house with marble tiles and gold faucetts, or maybe you'd be happier with a home with an airtight heater and running water. It all has to do with tastes, personally I prefer the latter.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The minimum wage is one thing, to keep raising it (which I'm dead against is another) it doesn't help the poor it makes them worse off. I'll give you some arbitrary "statistics" to demonstrate and you like statistics. I run a company the builds widgets and have 5 five employees, one at minimum wage- $8 an hour, another at $10 an, another at $15 an hour, another at $20 an and one at $25 an hour. So now Mr. Top Sh*t Politician says that I have to up the minimum wages by 10%, so the M.W. employees goes up to $8.80 BUT that's not where it ends, the $10 an hours comes to me and says F**k you if I don't get 10% I'm quitting. So you give him $11 and the guy at $15 gets $16.50 and the guy at $20 gets $22 and the guy at $25 gets $27.50. So at that point I have to make a decision - do I up the price of widgets 10% or do I reduce my payroll costs by 10%, well the demand for widgets hasn't been exactly brisk lately so I decide to reduce pay rolls costs, I dump the $8 an hour employee and sweep the floor and make the coffee my self. THAT S.J. SHOULD BE VERY EASY FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND.

I know JLM, businesses have made this argument for several decades now as to why minimum wage should not be raised. Unfortunately I haven’t seen a statistical validation of the argument. There are no statistics to suggest that unemployment goes up shortly after minimum wage is raised.

Minimum wage protects employees against unscrupulous employers. In times of high unemployment, an employer would be free to pay the employees as little as he likes, even starvation wage. During the depression era, people used to carry signs ‘will work for food’. I don’t want to see reappearance of such signs in Canada.

I think minimum wage is an essential part of civilized society. As to unemployment going up, well if every time minimum wage was raised unemployment went up, we would have perhaps 20 or 25% unemployment currently. How many times has minimum wage been raised in the history of Canada or USA? How much ahs unemployment gone up as a result of that?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SJP - You are confusing "lifestyle" and "life", which is no surprise.

I don’t’ think so, Petros. All the technological advances, advances in the field of medicine, in the field of politics (by banning discrimination, giving minorities equal rights etc.), these are meant to make life better, not ‘lifestyle’ better.

A black man or a woman trying to get into engineering degree program, a single mother, they have a better life today, not a better lifestyle.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Anna - we can never win an argument about which is the better life- some base it solely on material possessions and the outlay of money. Others base it on things like safety in the community and work place, having well adjusted children, having clean air and parks and having understanding and loyal friends. It boils down to things like the simple concept of whether you want to live in a "house" or do you want to live in a "home". You can have a house with marble tiles and gold faucetts, or maybe you'd be happier with a home with an airtight heater and running water. It all has to do with tastes, personally I prefer the latter.

You got that right, JLM. To me, better life is defined by higher income, greater creature comforts, more just laws regarding discrimination and equal rights, fewer absurd societal taboos (taboo against homosexuality, against sex before marriage or against divorce) etc.

As to other things you mention, those are intangibles and depend upon the individual, not on the society. Whether you want to live in a ‘house’ or a ‘home’ is entirely up to you. But most families have a better ‘house’ today than 50 years ago.

And I don’t know about you, but most people would prefer a house with marble tiles and gold faucets (if they could afford one that is), rather than just an airtight heater and running water.

 

[petros]

A black man or a woman trying to get into engineering degree program, a single mother, they have a better life today, not a better lifestyle.

A black man or single mom living here or one living in the Niger Delta?

 

[lone wolf]

These are isolated instances, Petros. And I don’t know where they have ‘stay indoors advisories’ in Canada, certainly I have not heard about them here in Ontario. If it happens because of say a truck had an accident and spilled something toxic, again, that would be an isolated instance.

And water purity can be measured scientifically. That is why I asked, do you have any statistics to compare water quality 50 years ago and today? If not, we really cannot resolve the issue. But I stand by my opinion. Considering the advances made in detection techniques (for pollutants) and purification techniques, in my opinion, water is of higher quality today that of 50 years ago.

As to crops, how does their nutritional value compare with the crops of the old times? What you are expressing here is your subjective, anecdotal experience, and you are welcome to it. But that does not really give us an objective, scientific answer.

No stay indoor advisories in Ontario? Ever heard of GTA smog alerts? Check the stats!

 

[Cliffy]

No stay indoor advisories in Ontario? Ever heard of GTA smog alerts? Check the stats!

15 years ago the BC health minister declared all surface water in BC contaminated. If all BC water is contaminated then all water is. Personally I think he was full o crap because running creak water is about as good as it gets. I might agree if he was talking about just the lower main land.

As a side note: at the same time the Minister of Deforestation said they were going to log all the watersheds in BC. For people living with gravity fed water systems that are degraded by logging above their water sheds, there would be no recourse to the law because it had already been declares unsafe.

 

[Cliffy]

No stay indoor advisories in Ontario? Ever heard of GTA smog alerts? Check the stats!

There is a pandemic of respiratory diseases in Canada and the US directly related to air quality, not to mention the ever increasing occurrence of cancers. Yup, life is better.

 

[petros]

So if the air and water is not good enough for humans then how can it possibly be good for the animals and plants we eat?

 

[Cliffy]

So if the air and water is not good enough for humans then how can it possibly be good for the animals and plants we eat?

Yup! All life on this planet is nothing more than toxic waste. Suck it up or die... or is that: suck it up and die? OMG! We're all gonna die!!!!
Oh. We are all gonna to die anyway.:roll:

 

[JLM]

So if the air and water is not good enough for humans then how can it possibly be good for the animals and plants we eat?

So no point in quitting breathing and drinking until we see the plants and animals suffering.

 

[petros]

They already are.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Now, I hate to rain on the parade here, disrupt this love fest going on as to how everything was paradise in 1959, how everything is Hell on earth today, but let us look at water quality.

In 1959, there were virtually no controls on who could dump what in water streams, most anybody was free to pollute to his heart’s content (I would say his or her, but in 1959 it was almost exclusively ‘his’).

In fact, this is what necessitated the Clean Water act of 1969.

1969 - Cuyahoga River catches fire in Ohio. Fires had erupted on the river many times, including June 22, 1969, when a river fire captured the attention of Time magazine, which described the Cuyahoga as the river that "oozes rather than flows" and in which a person "does not drown but decays." Helped spur legislative action on water pollution control resulting in the Clean Water Act, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and the creation of the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

1960s - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great Lakes water quality was deteriorating fast, necessitating the formation of Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

In the subsequent years, considerable progress was made to improve the quality of water, to try to revive the eco systems. But in 1959, there was not even any awareness that humans were polluting wholesale, without regard to what happens to environment. Like most movements, the environmental movement, Ralph Nader were also safely in the future.

There was no problem with water quality, air quality in 1959 like there was no problem with spousal abuse, child sex abuse, racial discrimination etc. Like everything else, it was swept under the rug, nobody talked about it, so of course it didn’t exist.

There was no problem with water quality, air quality, food quality etc. because nobody complained about these things in those day, everything was peaceful and quiet. It was the peace of the graveyard.

 

[petros]

It's all better now?

 

[petros]

I'll give you a dollar if you drink from a puddle.