Mocking The Poor

[bluebell]

You seem to be overlooking the fact that our Lord created this planet for all of us. There is no good reason to let the rich and powerful in this world override that fact. Especially not in America, where we can elect our own representatives to speak for us and our own best interests, and with relatively few rich people who "own" most of the wealth in this country the more advantage the rest of us hsve when our representatives speak and act in the best interest of our collective society.

To allow the minority among us (the richest aming us) to hold onto most of what truly is for all us is simply not right, and we should be passing and enforcing laws against that kind of greed and selfishness instead of supporting that kind of behavior.

 

There is one very good reason to let the rich and powerful override that fact-

 

Agency.  

 

The Lord created the planet for all of us, and then declared that each one of us would be allowed to choose how we lived on it.  Forced charity would not benefit us anymore than forced obedience to God would. 

 

Besides all that, i don't at all believe that stealing from the rich to give to the poor is in our best interests.  Neither do i believe that i have some 'right' to that which rich people have worked for and I didn't, just because we both live on the same planet.

[Ahab]

I just watched a show where a family had adopted at least 18 special needs children from all over the world, many abandoned, many parents unable to care for them. It was obvious from the home and cars and clothing as well as how they described their life (28 major appliances from Sears, including two washers and dryers, massive amount of shopping, yearly summer vacations driving all over the US with all the kids) that they were well off. They didn't start that way, but I have to wonder if they would have ever dared to imagine taking in that many all at once and so successfully for the most part if they weren't secure in knowing not only would they have enough, but more than enough to provide the cushion that extra level of stress would cause as well as being assured there wouldn't come a time when they might be having to downsize because someone else decided someone else needed the money more than they did.

The formula is fairly simple: Keep enough to maintain a modest lifestyle and give everything in excess of that to others. And that can include keeping a modest amount of money in savings and investments, even enough for the rest of your life.

Im just saying there is a point in everyones life when they would hsve more than enough to maintain a modest lifestyle, if they ever can get at least that much, and that everything over and above that amount should be given to other people. And if not freely given, then taken away by government, because nobody should keep more than enough when other people who dont have that much could use it.

I see it as something we could incorporate in our annual tax report filings, with a limited amount allowed in savings and research/investment accounts. And if a person or corporation had not given to other people or other charitable organizations in the previous year, it would then be given to the government which would then be accountable to those who are governed who elect government representatives.

But that gets into the political aspect and I should not be getting into that on this board.

[Ahab]

There is one very good reason to let the rich and powerful override that fact-

Agency.

The Lord created the planet for all of us, and then declared that each one of us would be allowed to choose how we lived on it. Forced charity would not benefit us anymore than forced obedience to God would.

Besides all that, i don't at all believe that stealing from the rich to give to the poor is in our best interests. Neither do i believe that i have some 'right' to that which rich people have worked for and I didn't, just because we both live on the same planet.

You talk as if only the rich and powerful in this world have agency, or as if all of the rest of us cant dictate the rules or the laws by which we are governed. We lock people away for other evil acts, why not for greed as well? The laws involving "ownership" of this planets resources can be modified by the poor or anyone else who recognizes the fact that this planet is for all of us, and not just the "rich" people.

You seem to have been deluded by those on this planet who have made our laws to favor the rich and powerful in this current state on this planet, but the system of laws we live under now are not in accordance with the way things should be. And sometime very soon our Lord will be coming down here to set things up the right way, if we dont do it ourselves before then.

[wenglund]

 The technique I was actually employing was "mocking and belittling sarcasm".

 

If so, then you need to work on your execution. You come across as oozing sanctimony presumably as a blind for ignorance. Better yet, for your own sake, leave the "mocking and belittling sarcasm" to people who actually have a clue.

 

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

 

Here is YOUR original claim (not to be confused with anything I have suggested): "Let the surplus population die off to increase the value of labor and restore equilibrium." 

 

Let me repeat, this is YOUR flawed application of the "freshman level graph."  It in no way reflects anything I have said.

 

Even though it isn't necessary, I will pay you the courtesy of showing you several ways in which your alleged "solution" doesn't compute on the freshman level graph.

 

First, you are apparently ignorant of the demographic that makes up the supply curve for minimum wage labor. According to the BLS, it is made up mostly of young people age 25 and under--the majority of whom are teenagers. (See HERE and HERE).

 

Given that the life expectancy in the U.S. is 79 years, then for most of the current minimum wage earners, it will be several decades before YOUR so-called "solution" kicks in--and this only if things remain static (i.e. the same people earning minimum wage today will still be earning minimum wage decades from now). Wrong!

 

The second unworkable flaw in YOUR so-called "solution" is your apparent ignorance that the change in quantity of supply for minimum wage labor is a net figure. You only accounted for population decrease through death, and failed to consider population increase through birth/growing-up and immigration. For YOUR "solution" to work on the freshman level graph, the death rate for the minimum wage demographic would have to exceed the rate of teens that turning 16 as well as the rate of immigration. Even with all the drive-by shootings, this ain't happening.

 

Along this same line, you seem to also be ignorant that nearly 2/3rd of unskilled labor force makes less than the minimum wage--see HERE) YOUR "solution" doesn't work on the freshman level graph because it doesn't account for the logical shift of population from below minimum wage jobs to minimum wage jobs.

 

[Edit: I neglected to add into the contravening mix something you brought up earlier, and that is the infusion of skilled labor into the minimum wage market due to unemployment levels. It is absurd to think that the rate of decease among young minimum wage workers would exceed the number of teens turning 16, the influx of immigrants, upward mobility of people making less than minimum wage, and the downward mobility of unemployed skilled workers.]

 

Fourth, YOUR "solution" doesn't work on the freshman level graph because it fails to factor in the affect of substitutes for minimum wage labor. "It sounds compassionate to alleviate poverty by mandating that employers raise wages, but employers often replace low-skill workers with machines. Think self-checkout machines in supermarkets, or computerized call centers." (See HERE)

 

Finally, there is statistical evidence that YOUR "solution" does compute on the freshmen level graph. For example, the number of minimum wage laborers decreased from 1.7 million in 2011 to 1.6 million in 2012 (see HERE and HERE), and has been declining since 1987 (see HERE), Let's charitably assume, for your sake, that the decline was due entirely to minimum wage earners dying off.  Nevertheless, the rate of unemployment for unskilled labor has remained disproportionally high (between 10.3% and 18.1% as compared with 7.8% for the general population) and has even increased over the years. (See HERE) In other words, the presumed death of minimum wage workers did not restore equilibrium, as evinced by the disproportionate and increasing levels of excess labor (i.e. unemployment). Sorry.

 

[Edit: Granted, the decrease over the years in the number of workers making minimum wage may well be, in part or whole, a function of decreased demand--i.e. not as many jobs available for minimum wage laborers, which support indirectly what I said above, particularly regarding substitution (automation). Then, too, there is the matter of international trade and out-sourcing, which I also neglected to mention. (See HERE)]

 

So, you were both uniformed and wrong as well as sanctimonious, and you can't rightly pawn it all off on me.

 

I will respond appreciatively and more respectfully (given the mod warning) to your answer to my question when I get a moment. For now, the snow shovel is calling.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 10, 2014 by wenglund

[bcuzbcuz]

Like I said, taking control of what they produce would likely annoy the ones I know the most...but the other things would add to the weight of 'why bother' as they really don't work for the pure joy of it...and if they didn't have the companies, they wouldn't have to worry about their employees...someone else would be taking care of them by taking the money from the rich and giving it to the poor to spend on whatever they wanted....

Forcing people to be charitable never leads to real charity IMO. Isn't that the theory most people have of Lucifer's plan, forcing people to be good and nice?

There is a reason why most people won't get into the risky business of entrepreneurship...they haven't the guts or the desire to risk failing. The payoff has to balance the costs...and I am not just talking financial, but emotional and mental and physical from the intense pressure and social from the excessive hours.

I am somewhat surprised to see the words "force" and "charity" in the same sentence. I've heard similar wording from people talking about how they think they are over-taxed. Is that the comparison you are making here, that the "charity" of helping others, through tax supported measures, is the "force" that you are referring to? Or have I misunderstood your stance?

I live in a country with a very considerablely higher tax rate than those of you living in the US or Canada have. I am ashamed to admit that the previous "safety nets" that existed in my country have been eroded by stingy and selfish politics. 30 years ago there were no beggars on the streets. The people who needed mental health care were provided with such help, those who suffered from alcohol or drug problems could receive both help and counselling. That is no longer the case in my country. I know it is the same in North America. Experience has shown me that many people seldom spend any time reflecting on those less fortunate than themselves. A good social system protects those less fortunate from the forgetfulness of the majority. I don't consider such systems and the way they collect revenue, from taxes, as forced charity. Do you?

[Ahab]

Alright, after evaluation of the posts from Wade and The Nehor a winner has been chosen. And the funniest person is the winner! A good sense of humor is a good thing to have.

[Calm]

. I don't consider such systems and the way they collect revenue, from taxes, as forced charity. Do you?

I do not. I was addressing how Ahab appears to view them.

If one hasn't voted for taxes, but the law imposes them upon one then that isn't charity even if it is force. Nor do I believe such a force is wrong in all cases...it is the broad sword that Ahab is suggesting to take control if one does not willingly part with it. It might be fair, it might even be just...I am not even arguing that...I am simply pointing out that such an action would be self defeating, counterproductive in that it would discourage people from going above and beyond whatever was needed to qualify for that effort.

If a country who actually had a working safety net as you say yours did cannot see the benefit enough to maintain it, why would someone who has had control of his resources in the past feel good in turning total control over to someone else?

Because in Ahab's scenario, it is total control. You would have the right to keep as much as the government allowed or less, but if you projected a greater need for whatever reason than was seen necessary by the government, they would be stepping in to correct your "greed"....even if that greed was anticipation of a future life full of special needs adopted children or a business that would generate millions in income for hundreds of employees or a desire to create a foundation to provide scholarships for the poor or medical research for a deadly disease.

[bluebell]

You talk as if only the rich and powerful in this world have agency, or as if all of the rest of us cant dictate the rules or the laws by which we are governed. We lock people away for other evil acts, why not for greed as well? The laws involving "ownership" of this planets resources can be modified by the poor or anyone else who recognizes the fact that this planet is for all of us, and not just the "rich" people.

You seem to have been deluded by those on this planet who have made our laws to favor the rich and powerful in this current state on this planet, but the system of laws we live under now are not in accordance with the way things should be. And sometime very soon our Lord will be coming down here to set things up the right way, if we dont do it ourselves before then.

 

I believe the kind of laws you are talking about would be evil.

 

And when the Lord comes again, i do not believe He is going to force everyone to live the law of consecration.  Doing so would serve no purpose.  

 

Christ's purpose in every sacrifice He asks us to make is to help us to become more like Him.  To teach us how to be like our Father in Heaven and to help us want to live a celestial life.  That is the reason He gives us commandments.  If He forced people to obey, He would nullify His work.

[The Nehor]

It was the policies of the fed (The Central Bank or the governmental bank) that caused the crash. And no the government didn't help in getting us out. That is the reason it lasted for over 10 years here in America was precisly because the government messed it up even more.  Good grief. Anyway that is all I will say about this. It doesn't matter what I say you will just dismiss it. Carry on.

 

So the massive government spending on the military due to World War II did not contribute to the end of the Depression? Really?

[The Nehor]

You seem to be overlooking the fact that our Lord created this planet for all of us. There is no good reason to let the rich and powerful in this world override that fact. Especially not in America, where we can elect our own representatives to speak for us and our own best interests, and with relatively few rich people who "own" most of the wealth in this country the more advantage the rest of us hsve when our representatives speak and act in the best interest of our collective society.

To allow the minority among us (the richest aming us) to hold onto most of what truly is for all us is simply not right, and we should be passing and enforcing laws against that kind of greed and selfishness instead of supporting that kind of behavior.

 

Won't work. If you pass laws to restrict the growth of wealth and bring everyone to base-level equality the wealthy will move overseas and take as much of their assets with them as they can. I do encourage getting our tax brackets sorted out and pushing the highest levels back up to 60-70% where it belongs with more moderate increases in other areas.

 

 

You hit the nail right on the head.

 

If we can force charity why can't we force salvation? Those that are for forcing charity ie, taking from the rich and giving to the poor, should have no issues saying, "We should just make every one Mormon after are we are right and it is going to safe them all".

 

I am okay with not causing it charity and calling it wealth redistribution. That way the wealthy don't have to feel good about it and the problem disappears. HOORAY!!!!

[Ahab]

I believe the kind of laws you are talking about would be evil.

And when the Lord comes again, i do not believe He is going to force everyone to live the law of consecration. Doing so would serve no purpose.

Christ's purpose in every sacrifice He asks us to make is to help us to become more like Him. To teach us how to be like our Father in Heaven and to help us want to live a celestial life. That is the reason He gives us commandments. If He forced people to obey, He would nullify His work.

Im not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. Im talking about making good laws with penalties for people eho break the good laws we, as a common society, have made.

Are you under the impression that greed is a good thing?

[bcuzbcuz]

I do not. I was addressing how Ahab appears to view them.

If one hasn't voted for taxes, but the law imposes them upon one then that isn't charity even if it is force. Nor do I believe such a force is wrong in all cases...it is the broad sword that Ahab is suggesting to take control if one does not willingly part with it. It might be fair, it might even be just...I am not even arguing that...I am simply pointing out that such an action would be self defeating, counterproductive in that it would discourage people from going above and beyond whatever was needed to qualify for that effort.

If a country who actually had a working safety net as you say yours did cannot see the benefit enough to maintain it, why would someone who has had control of his resources in the past feel good in turning total control over to someone else?

Because in Ahab's scenario, it is total control. You would have the right to keep as much as the government allowed or less, but if you projected a greater need for whatever reason than was seen necessary by the government, they would be stepping in to correct your "greed"....even if that greed was anticipation of a future life full of special needs adopted children or a business that would generate millions in income for hundreds of employees or a desire to create a foundation to provide scholarships for the poor or medical research for a deadly disease.

Thank you for responding. You ask a poignant question.

"If a country who actually had a working safety net as you say yours did cannot see the benefit enough to maintain it, why would someone who has had control of his resources in the past feel good in turning total control over to someone else?"

I live in a democracy. And as such, when a the controlling political party moves in a direction away from what I consider a very responsible "safety net" towards a system of "survival of the rich", I have no more control over those factors than you or others who live in similar political systems. One person, one vote. I can understand greed, and I understand why people want more of their personal income under their personal control, (I am not saying the first factor is necessarily equal to the latter), but I am more than willing to give more than half of my personal income for the societal structures that maintain a caring society.....but I am obviously, presently, a minority in my country.

If "trickle down economics", as described by the Chicago school of economic thinking, supposedly functions, with wealth creating colateral benefits, I see the same factors at work when income, through taxes, is redistributed. You speak of such redistribution as being "self defeating, counterproductive in that it would discourage people from going above and beyond whatever was needed to qualify for that effort." Yes, possibly. Especially when marginal taxes go above 70%. But there are those, myself included, who work and put in overtime, without remuneration, regardless. I see similar examples everyday in my chosen profession of education where a majority of teachers spend many hours and use resources financed from their own pockets, to provide a better education enironment for their pupils. I see the same self sacrifice in the thousands of homes that take in foster children, without any thought to financial rewards.

Surely there are other careers where people put in a huge amount of effort without receiving a financial compensation? Taxes do not destroy work ethic. Nor is work ethic created by € or $.

[The Nehor]

Im not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. Im talking about making good laws with penalties for people eho break the good laws we, as a common society, have made.

 

Ummmmmm.....uhhhhhh......how do you define force then if a law is not a kind of compulsion?

[Ahab]

Ummmmmm.....uhhhhhh......how do you define force then if a law is not a kind of compulsion?

People are not forced to obey laws, even though they may not like the consequences if they do not choose to follow a law. If someone was greedy, for example, and if there were laws against greed requiring the payment of penalties for acts of greed, a person would still not be forced to not be greedy even if the laws required the payment of penalties.

[Calm]

Surely there are other careers where people put in a huge amount of effort without receiving a financial compensation? Taxes do not destroy work ethic. Nor is work ethic created by € or $.

It is not just the high hours that is required, but a high need for control and a high tolerance of risk.

As my husband pointed out to me, history shows when governments get in the way of entrepreneurs doing their thing, they will often simply revert to going underground....meaning black market. Being natural risk takers, this should not be unexpected....but it will create a whole host of other issues.

[bluebell]

Im not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. Im talking about making good laws with penalties for people eho break the good laws we, as a common society, have made.

Are you under the impression that greed is a good thing?

You are the one who said that if the rich didn't want to give up their money they should be forced. Edited January 10, 2014 by bluebell

[why me]

You are the one who said that if the rich didn't want to give up their money they should be forced.

Some of the rich are forced to give up some of their money through taxes. This happens in a progressive tax system. The new NYC mayor wishes to put more taxes onto the rich. However, there are rich people who pay less tax than the average person. I am speaking about the United States in all this. So there is a system of force at play in all this.

 

The question then becomes what happens to tax money? Does it go to public services? Does it go to the military? How much of that tax money benefits the people in the country? Likewise for ordinary who pay taxes. They in particular want to see their lives benefited by their tax money.

[The Nehor]

People are not forced to obey laws, even though they may not like the consequences if they do not choose to follow a law. If someone was greedy, for example, and if there were laws against greed requiring the payment of penalties for acts of greed, a person would still not be forced to not be greedy even if the laws required the payment of penalties.

 

A law mandating something is akin to forcing it. It is true that they have their agency to defy the law but they do not have the freedom to defy the law.

 

I can tell you your solution wouldn't do what you hoped and I would vehemently fight against legislation that would implement your plan.

[Ahab]

You are the one who said that if the rich didn't want to give up their money they should be forced.

No, I didnt use the word force. I was talking about enforcing laws against evil acts, and making some good laws against greed, but everyone would be free to rebel against those good laws just as people can rebel against good laws right now even though there are penalties for rebelling against law and the rebellious dont usually like having to pay those penalties.

[Ahab]

A law mandating something is akin to forcing it. It is true that they have their agency to defy the law but they do not have the freedom to defy the law.

I can tell you your solution wouldn't do what you hoped and I would vehemently fight against legislation that would implement your plan.

Akin? Come on now. When something is forced there is no choice in the matter.

We have many good laws now and none of them involve force. We use the word "enforce" but we're talking about enforcing penalties when people choose to rebel against laws, rather than forcing people to obey laws we have made.

Why not just add some good laws against greed?

[bluebell]

No, I didnt use the word force. I was talking about enforcing laws against evil acts, and making some good laws against greed, but everyone would be free to rebel against those good laws just as people can rebel against good laws right now even though there are penalties for rebelling against law and the rebellious dont usually like having to pay those penalties.

 

You said that if the rich did not want to give up their excess, we should make them.

 

Isn't that the definition of 'force'?

 

Besides that issue though, your proposals have some serious flaws, which is what Cal and I (and others) have been trying to show you.

 

What would actually happen if such laws were passed, is that the rich would take their assets and leave the country.   Things would then get worse, not better. 

 

Also, these laws would be themselves unrighteous because they ignore the fact that poor people can also be greedy.  They make the rich a special class of citizens and penalize them for 'greed' while ignoring 'greed' in all other groups of people.

 

And, such laws would require the government to make new agencies in charge of deciding who is actually being greedy.  Moralilty police forces are always a disaster.  It's too easy for them to abuse their power.  Greed is subjective.

 

And finally, if the point of 'greed' laws is to make a more righteous society, would they even work?  Is someone who is on Medicaid and get's free medical care being greedy when they refuse to book an appointment with a primary care physician because going to the ER is just so much easier, even though it costs the tax payers a lot more money (I have family in the health care field and they deal with this A LOT).  Probably, but our country is incapable of stopping them right now from doing that (even though it can be considered medicaid fraud). Would new laws against greed change this practice?  No.

 

You can't force people to be righteous, so any laws enacted for the purpose of increasing righteousness are doomed to fail.

Edited January 10, 2014 by bluebell

[The Nehor]

Akin? Come on now. When something is forced there is no choice in the matter.

We have many good laws now and none of them involve force. We use the word "enforce" but we're talking about enforcing penalties when people choose to rebel against laws, rather than forcing people to obey laws we have made.

Why not just add some good laws against greed?

 

Actually when it comes to tax laws if you choose not to follow them and are caught you are forced to comply by having your money taken. In some cases you get to go to prison too. You're splitting hairs. You can of course choose to break the law.

 

You can't make a law against an impulse. Why not make good laws against lust or avarice or jealousy?

 

I agree with you that our system is not working particularly well now but you seem to want to equalize wealth using a Procrustean bed. That will be the end of capitalism and since you can't legislate Consecration into being you are going to have to replace it with something else.....probably some version of communism.

[thesometimesaint]

You know why a CEO makes more than that average employee? Might it have to do with the decisions and choices the CEO makes that impacts revenue, IE, production? For me it always boils down to production. If you can come up with a solution or a process that is more productive should you not reap that reward? IG, Henry Ford and the assembly line.

 

I reject your premise. That is what I am responding to.

 

Productivity of the individual worker has been on a steady increase for decades now. Yet they see little of that increase in their paycheck. Again I have no problem with Capitalism or reaping the benefits of my work. I was a COO and darn good at my job. I made even more than the owner of the company. But no my skills and earnings weren't 350 times that of our employees. They were about twice it.

 

Henry Ford for all his talents didn't invent the automobile, or the assembly line, or mass production. He took those already existing ideas and applied them to, at the time, custom built automobiles. He offered enough wages that his average employee could afford what they built. Ford made a fortune doing it.

[wenglund]

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.

 

 

Before responding, I wanted to say that I hope you know that some of what I have said was meant in jest. Actually, I find you to be uncommonly intelligent, informed, and witty. It is a pleasure to read your comments--particularly when they are biting, and to be stretched by your insights.

 

With that having been said, doesn't it depend upon the degree and nature of the trade-off between the increase in minimum wage and the subsequent loss of jobs?

 

For example, if the minimum wage was increased from $7.65 hr to $10.00 hr., and were this to cause 25 out of 100 minimum wage employees to lose their jobs, then their loss per hour would be $191.25  ($7.65 * 25) in wages, whereas the 75 out of a 100 remaining employees would gain only $176.50 per hr. ($2.35 * 75) in wages, which would mean that there would be a net loss of $15 an hour in wages. Distributing this over the 1.5 million minimum wage or less earners, times by 40 hrs a week over 50 week, it would add up to an annual net loss of around a half a billion dollars. Thus, by raising the minimum in this scenario, the loss in wages to the unemployed workers would be greater than the gain to those who remained employed. As a group, the poor would end up poorer.

 

Granted, the trade-off (elasticity of labor demand) is typically less than 25. Credible economists figure the loss of jobs to be between 3% to 5% for every 10% increase in minimum wage (see HERE) Since the last increase in MW in July of 2009 (see HERE), the poverty level has steadily risen, and is poised to rise to its highest level since the 60's. (See HERE)

 

Something to think about.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 10, 2014 by wenglund

[why me]

I live in a democracy.

As many political science academics will tell you democracy has many meaning depending on the belief what a democracy is. You must be more exact why you think you live in a democracy. One vote does not matter, especially if the major political parties are more or less the same in ideology. No matter where one lives, this is more the case nowadays. One can live in a democracy when there are honest alternatives to chose from: more than one ideology to chose from.

 

Now my above statement may be different from yours. This is why the word democracy is so difficult. Too many definitions.

Edited January 10, 2014 by why me