Mocking The Poor

[Duncan]

There are ex-pats in practically every country on earth. I said nothing about becoming a citizen, just a place to live.

 

I never said everyone did. But if they have two functioning legs they can walk. Some of the biggest migrations in history have been people picking up and moving even if they had very limited resources to do it. IE; The migrations of poor blacks out of the South after the US Civil War.

 

 

well, you know what they say that there are two kinds of people in this world, Canadians and people who wish they were   

Edited January 9, 2014 by Duncan

[Ahab]

Taking money away from the rich is giving them special treatment.

Who gets to judge who the rich are?

When Im talking about a rich person Im talking about someone who has an amount of money in excess of a modest amount to live a modest lifestyle. Its not going to be the same amount of money for every rich person because some people and their immediate family members have medical issues that some dont, and some rich people can reasonably choose to live in more expensive areas than some other rich people, like in some parts of the US vs Mexico or some other less expensive areas, but the main idea involved in a "rich" persons life is that they have in excess of what they need fir a modest lifestyle. And it is not right or fair or just that a person retain an excess while others scrape to get by even when working a lot harder than a rich person does. The excess should simply be given to someone who needs it.

[Calm]

So special treatment for the rich...even if it is by their own hard work (often where they have been working practically every minute they are awake for years in one form or another) and skill that they are rich.

While for some I can see them pursuing their dreams of innovation for the sake of that dream, I don't see why they would give up hours of their leisure time, time that could be spent on other dreams and work that hard to just create something that is then controlled by others. And thus the wealth would never get created, never get produced or be able to be given to others who had not worked for it.

[The Nehor]

How many rich people do you actually know?

I've met a few millionaires and they were very compassionate and concerned about others. In fact, it was one of the reasons that drove them to become rich....because they felt great responsibility to ensure that the people they employed still had their jobs the next day. Their anxiety about this drove them to work excessive hours and look for new ways to bring income into their companies.

Undoubtedly there are a number of rich who treat others like you say, I suspect there are even a number of the middle class and poor who do as well. Selfishness is unfortunately not limited to the rich.

Where is the compassion and empathy for the rich person? Why assume the worst for him or her and the best for the poor? Why not take each case by case with compassion and an interest in the individual as opposed to some stereotype we have assumed about them?

 

I know many rich people. Most of them are very nice.

 

I do not like this weird idea (I think it was Rand's idea) that the rich are some kind of "suffering servants" because they create jobs and look at how they work to make everyone get something. They are the true heroes. Yeah, whatever.

[bluebell]

What the poor person chooses to spend his money on would determine if he stays poor and needs more bailouts or becomes independent and can care for himself and family. Just giving money is no guarantee.

 

That is SO true!

 

My sister, who i love dearly, is a hug example of this.  I'll just share one example among many-she is perpetually poor, partly because her hubby can't earn very much money (though he works hard-there's a long story behind it that's not important), but mostly because she is incapable of managing her money.  She's on every government assistance program possible, and also frequently visits food banks (weekly) and any other 'get it for free' thing available where she lives.  My parents pretty much subsidize her life.

 

Last year she got back almost 5,000 in her tax return-that is a HUGE amount of money for them and my mother desperately tried to get her to put some away for upcoming medical expenses that weren't covered by medicaid, and to get current on her rent, etc.

 

Well, she ended up buying a trampoline, an ipad, a new phone, and a hundred other things for her little girls (new bean bag chairs, for example).  The money was completely gone in a month and she was no better off than she had been before it showed up.  She ended up having to borrow the money from my parents to pick up prescriptions for her girls and to pay her car payment.  She still owes them that money, and she's already plotting all the cool stuff she's going to buy with this year's tax return.

 

A lot of poor people are not poor because of lack of money-they are poor because they are bad with money.  This isn't a judgment against them but just a fact.  Good money management usually has to be learned and if no one is around to teach you, then it's really hard to succeed.  There was some t.v. show a few years ago that did an experiment by giving a homeless man a 100,000 dollars and then following him to see what would happen.  He had good intentions, but with the year it was all gone and he had nothing to show for it.  He was on the street again.

Edited January 9, 2014 by bluebell

[wenglund]

You already attempted to degrade it by turning yourself into the brilliant professor lecturing his dim pupil. It is painfully transparent. Instructive leading questions are annoying. They also got Socrates killed and I sympathize a bit with the people who locked him up to get him to shut up.

 

My reasonable questions wouldn't typically be annoying to people who know the answers, though I can see how they would very much irritate people who are blowing copious smoke.

 

And I disrespectfully disagree. it is not working. It works for those able and willing to get an education or learn a skill.  If everyone does it it stops working. This is already happening. Lots of people with college degrees are fighting to get fast food jobs and not just those with the often unemployable degrees.

 

Yes, they are fighting with non-citizens for those position, in spite of what you suggest below.

 

However, the fact that some skilled people are fighting for unskilled jobs, doesn't mean my solution isn't working. Again, my solution lays no claim to absolute and universal perfection. Yet, the fact that 95.3% of the employed workers earn above the minimum wage (see HERE and HERE), many of whom began their work experience making minimum wage or less, is a respectable performance by most any measure, certainly in comparison to your counter-productive solution.

 

Unlike your freedom-restricting preference, at least my solution hasn't resulted in 10.3% to 29.8% unemployment among unskilled labor as compared with 7.8% for the general population. (See HERE)

 

Am I supposed to beat upon my breast and protest how hard I had it so we can find out who is the more debased?

 

No. However, the decent thing would have been to admit that you falsely characterized my position.

 

Yet someone has to do the grunt work and getting phd in berry picking or janitorial studies is not going to lead to those jobs paying more.

 

It is odd that you would choose berry picking as your example since it, like most field jobs, tends to be a seasonal, production-based wage (by the case or flat) rather than an hourly wage job, and wouldn't be covered by minimum wage laws.

 

Do you really imagine John Q. American will go out in the fields and pick fruit for $5 an hour but immigrants are willing to do it for $4 an hour and minimum wage is taking their jobs. The graph says that but the graph is dead wrong. They can't even get John Q. American to do the job for minimum wage.

 

Leaders in the African-American community disagree. (See HERE and HERE)

 

No, no, NO!!!! Economic development comes best for all parties when the supplies of capital and labor are in line. If population growth alone stimulated growth we would abolish immigration controls and so would every other nation and we would compete to win people over.

 

I didn't say population growth alone. Please stop mus-characterizing what I have said. Having worked with economic development offices in multiple states, I can assure you that population growth is an important factor in economic development. Don't take my word for it. Check their web sites.

 

The baby boomers were a special case. America had just come out of World War II relatively unscathed while most of the rest of the world (pretty much all of the developed world) were dealing with population shortages, rebuilding due to the war, and collapse of colonial empires. We were the new economic superpower. We had industry, people to man it, and a huge market out there. The comparative advantage was a huge boon. If we were to grow at that rate now projections show us going backwards economically.

 

Special case or not, it contravenes your claim.

 

Now, I can understand if people here may be disinclined to take the word of presumed irritating wannabe professor regarding minimum wage laws causing unemployment among unskilled labor, but perhaps they might trust credible financial outlets HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE.

 

And, this is just one of several unintended negative consequences resulting from instituting and raising minimum wage.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

I know many rich people. Most of them are very nice.

I do not like this weird idea (I think it was Rand's idea) that the rich are some kind of "suffering servants" because they create jobs and look at how they work to make everyone get something. They are the true heroes. Yeah, whatever.

Never sai all the rich were that way or that was the only motivation that they had. Never read Rand and never heard a millionaire picture himself as suffering because he cared enough about his employees it caused him some sleepless nights thinking what he had gotten them into.

I just don't buy all the rich are rich simply because they are too selfish to share or that there aren't plenty of rich individuals that work as hard as some poor do.*** They have a choice which makes a huge difference, but this picture Ahab seems to be presenting of rich equals lazy, selfish, greedy and miserly...just not my experience.

Do I think massive multiple houses, etc. are overkill and the money could be better spent creating jobs that help lower income...most of the time, but I also wonder what would happen to all the middle class that are employed by the building and luxury industries if the money that goes to their jobs shifts to being given to someone else.

The world is so screwed up now that it seems like anything major required by law to fix things only ends up making it worse because of the way things are dependent on each other. Efforts to 'green' up a city may backfire due to the lack of technology necessary to make it work. Ensuring that everyone has insurance only really works if the insurance system isn't broken to begin with....it seems to me the only effective measures these days are ones that are voluntary and low level and even some of those can mess things up (such as the green efforts mentioned before).

****or that poverty would be solved solely by taking money away from the rich and 'making them work for a living like everyone else'.

Edited January 9, 2014 by calmoriah

[The Nehor]

My reasonable questions wouldn't typically be annoying to people who know the answers, though I can see how they would very much irritate people who are blowing copious smoke.

 

No, being patronized does not feel better when you know the answer and you know that the teacher is going to give you a gold star for being such a smart little boy. HOORAY! If I get five I get candy!

 

Special case or not, it contravenes your claim.

 

Indeed, if you were to point out that murder was forbidden by God I could ICE BURN you by pointing out that Nephi was told to kill Laban therefore murder is good because special cases are evidence of general ones.

 

I am glad we have this new rule. It makes arguing much easier.

 

I will now point out that my great-great grandfathers death can be attributed in part to capitalism. It was admittedly a special case and before I would never blame the system itself but since special cases now prove a general one capitalism killed my great-great grandfather and as a supporter of capitalism you are now a murderer and carry the blood of my family on your hands.

 

So I have now proven capitalism is evil. As somewhat with somewhat conservative leanings I find this somewhat shocking. Still, if we are using these rules of reason it is the only logical conclusion. I guess I win the argument.

 

I am going to invoke Section 98 of the Doctrine and Covenants. That is one strike against you. I am commanded to bear it patiently and will now be rewarded a hundredfold. I am also not going to revile against you or seek vengeance. Still, that is one strike. If you kill three more members of my family I have scriptural permission to seek vengeance upon you. You have been warned.

[Ahab]

Im not against people making a lot of money, even to the point where they qualify as being rich people. What Im against is rich people keeping more than a modest amount of the money they have when there are so many other people who could benefit from that excess.

And no it doesnt matter if the rich person somehow managed his money to become a rich person. What matters is what a person does with what he has that is over and above what a person needs to maintain a modest lifestyle. Keep it all to himself so he can be even more wealthy, or give the excess away to others? The latter is the righteous decision, and I call that being charitable, which is the right way to be.

[thesometimesaint]

well, you know what they say that there are two kinds of people in this world, Canadians and people who wish they were   

 

I like Canada. But it is just too darn cold there. Southern Canada is still north of the contiguous US.

 

 

we'll have highs in the low 70's today and 80 by Monday, and that's not 70-80 below.

[wenglund]

No, being patronized does not feel better when you know the answer and you know that the teacher is going to give you a gold star for being such a smart little boy. HOORAY! If I get five I get candy!

 

What a remarkably victimological imagination you have. Do you seriously believe your dripping sanctimony will cover for your glaring ignorance, let alone your hypocrisy? LOL

 

 

 

Indeed, if you were to point out that murder was forbidden by God I could ICE BURN you by pointing out that Nephi was told to kill Laban therefore murder is good because special cases are evidence of general ones.

 

But, that wouldn't be an argument that I would make, nor is it analogous to what I said regarding population growth and economic growth. I didn't present baby boomers as a special case evincing general ones, but rather as a clear case that contravenes your straw man assertion that: "We could also use your freshmen level graph as a guide to our actions and we are back to the classical economists: 'Let the surplus population die off to increase the value of labor and restore equilibrium'. Basically you have either a monstrous solution or no solution at all."

 

You can know that this is specifically what I was arguing against by the fact that my statement about baby boomers follows immediately after the quote above--see post #240 on page 12 of this thread.

 

My evidence in support of the general case that population growth is important to economic growth, was to point you to economic development web sites. (See post #306) I can present other evidence if needs be.

 

Enough with the straw already.

 

Since you are so easily irritated by investigative and instructional questions, let me ask you instead a clarifying question. Do you agree or disagree that minimum wage laws tend to cause unemployment among those workers it is intended to help?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 9, 2014 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

So special treatment for the rich...even if it is by their own hard work (often where they have been working practically every minute they are awake for years in one form or another) and skill that they are rich.

While for some I can see them pursuing their dreams of innovation for the sake of that dream, I don't see why they would give up hours of their leisure time, time that could be spent on other dreams and work that hard to just create something that is then controlled by others. And thus the wealth would never get created, never get produced or be able to be given to others who had not worked for it.

 

In this country by far the most common way to become rich is to have rich parents. That's not what I'd call hard work on the offspring's part.

[ERayR]

What will happen to me?  I look in the mirror every day and sneer at the image and say "You Poor ignorant fool.  If you had only played the games better you would have a better retirement.

[wenglund]

In this country by far the most common way to become rich is to have rich parents. That's not what I'd call hard work on the offspring's part.

 

Since baby boomers make up a significant proportion of the U.S. population, and since most of the parents of baby boomers are survivor of the Great Depression, I question your bald assertion.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

What a remarkably victimological imagination you have. Do you seriously believe your dripping sanctimony will cover for your glaring ignorance, let alone your hypocrisy? LOL

 

 

 

 

But, that wouldn't be an argument that I would make, nor is it analogous to what I said regarding population growth and economic growth. I didn't present baby boomers as a special case evincing general ones, but rather as a clear case that contravenes your straw man assertion that: "We could also use your freshmen level graph as a guide to our actions and we are back to the classical economists: 'Let the surplus population die off to increase the value of labor and restore equilibrium'. Basically you have either a monstrous solution or no solution at all."

 

You can know that this is specifically what I was arguing against by the fact that my statement about baby boomers follows immediately after the quote above--see post #240 on page 12 of this thread.

 

My evidence in support of the general case that population growth is important to economic growth, was to point you to economic development web sites. (See post #306) I can present other evidence if needs be.

 

Enough with the straw already.

 

Since you are easily irritated by investigative and instructional question let me ask you instead a clarifying question. Do you agree or disagree that minimum wage laws tend to cause unemployment among those workers it is intended to help?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Economic growth is an independent factor of population growth. IE; The US has about 1/16th the population of the world yet accounts for about 1/4 of world economic activity.

 

The MW doesn't not nor ever has caused unemployment among those workers it is intended to help. Quite the opposite. Henry Ford proved it back before there were any MW laws. He paid his works well enough that they could afford the cars they built, and he got very rich doing it.

[thesometimesaint]

Since baby boomers make up a significant proportion of the U.S. population, and since most of the parents of baby boomers are survivor of the Great Depression, I question your bald assertion.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

While the Boomers have done well respective to their parents it isn't all that much better

 

As to my bald assertion.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-22/how-did-the-worlds-rich-get-that-way-luck

[Calm]

Im not against people making a lot of money, even to the point where they qualify as being rich people. What Im against is rich people keeping more than a modest amount of the money they have when there are so many other people who could benefit from that excess.

And no it doesnt matter if the rich person somehow managed his money to become a rich person. What matters is what a person does with what he has that is over and above what a person needs to maintain a modest lifestyle. Keep it all to himself so he can be even more wealthy, or give the excess away to others? The latter is the righteous decision, and I call that being charitable, which is the right way to be.

It is not however charity when the money is taken from them without their permission. Most would call it stealing unless it was bu rule of law, then it is by force of government.

If rich people who work only keep a modest amount they won't br rich, just people who work hard and don't get paid as much as others who don't work as hard since everyone would be getting about the same modest amount...which increases the likelihood that person won't feel the drive to work long hours and to take risks, thus no additional wealth is created.

[why me]

Since baby boomers make up a significant proportion of the U.S. population, and since most of the parents of baby boomers are survivor of the Great Depression, I question your bald assertion.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think that the times have changed since the baby boomers. The children of baby boomers are not fairing so well. Just the opposite.

 

http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2449-baby-boomers-supporting-parents-children.html

 

As Bob Dylan sang: The Times they are a changing.

 

[Calm]

In this country by far the most common way to become rich is to have rich parents. That's not what I'd call hard work on the offspring's part.

CFR please.

Note that I have only been talking about the hard workers. Please don't change my points to something I am not debating.

[why me]

While the Boomers have done well respective to their parents it isn't all that much better

 

As to my bald assertion.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-22/how-did-the-worlds-rich-get-that-way-luck

You bet me to it. I wish that people would realize just what is happening around them. It seems that many people do not see real life. We need to adopt CW Mills sociological imagination and take a step outside our own life, to see life anew.

[The Nehor]

What a remarkably victimological imagination you have. Do you seriously believe your dripping sanctimony will cover for your glaring ignorance, let alone your hypocrisy? LOL

 

A victimological imagination would be someone who daydreams about the study of victims. Very bad word choice I think.

 

You are also confused about "dripping santimony". The technique I was actually employing was "mocking and belittling sarcasm".

 

But, that wouldn't be an argument that I would make, nor is it analogous to what I said regarding population growth and economic growth. I didn't present baby boomers as a special case evincing general ones, but rather as a clear case that contravenes your straw man assertion that: "We could also use your freshmen level graph as a guide to our actions and we are back to the classical economists: 'Let the surplus population die off to increase the value of labor and restore equilibrium'. Basically you have either a monstrous solution or no solution at all."

 

That is what the freshman level graph says is the ideal solution as did many classical economists. That is how supply and demand works. The graph is not moral. It is exactly analogous You are arguing that a special case proves a point. I pointed out that that is insane and also makes you a murderer. Now you are arguing that it contravenes 

 

Since you are so easily irritated by investigative and instructional questions, let me ask you instead a clarifying question. Do you agree or disagree that minimum wage laws tend to cause unemployment among those workers it is intended to help?

 

I already answered this question in this thread. The answer is "I agree". However as I also stated before (in other words) having one employee making minimum wage is preferable to having four employees making $2/hour.

 

I think you are trying to play words games to force me to "admit" that it harms those who it is intended to help but of course you did not say that. You are trying to be a clever murderer. If asked the question whether I think it harms those it is meant to help then my answer would be, on the whole, no. Individual cases will of course vary.

[thesometimesaint]

CFR please.

Note that I have only been talking about the hard workers. Please don't change my points to something I am not debating.

 

Does the average CEO work 350 times harder than their average employee?

http://moneymorning.com/2013/04/19/ceo-pay-now-7000-an-hour-350-times-the-average-workers/

[The Nehor]

CFR please.

Note that I have only been talking about the hard workers. Please don't change my points to something I am not debating.

 

How do you measure who is a hard worker? I ask because it is easy to say at that point that hard workers are obviously the successful people which is a circular argument.

[Duncan]

CFR please.

Note that I have only been talking about the hard workers. Please don't change my points to something I am not debating.

 

 

one thing I have seen a lot of is wealthy people paying for their kids schooling and ensuring them to become as successful as they are. One family in particular the dad came from nothing but climbed his way up to the top and became an optometrist and now owns half a pupil places  and paid for all of his kids schooling and his son in law's law school and 2/4 of his boys are now optometrists, the other two are I forget now. Mind you I only get my eyes done from the dad as I don't trust the boys

Edited January 9, 2014 by Duncan

[Calm]

Does the average CEO work 350 times harder than their average employee?

http://moneymorning.com/2013/04/19/ceo-pay-now-7000-an-hour-350-times-the-average-workers/

when I argue that people deserve 350 times as much pay as their employees, I will answer that question.

I am debating a very, very limited point. Please do not expand it into areas I am not arguing.