The Rich And The Poor - Lds Statements

[sdc999]

MFT,

I'm going to borrow one of your oft repeated requests.  Please go back and read 158 and answer the question.  This may give me a better idea where you are coming from.  The position of the taker or the giver.  

[thesometimesaint]

What would then be the incentive for someone to improve themselves if they are just waiting around for somebody else to do the work so they can receive a free handout?  This is very similar to Socialist grade experiment.  Look it up if you are not familiar with it.   Those that worked the least were rewarded by those that worked the hardest.  Once the middle guys saw they could be rewarded if they didn't work as hard..... well.  The hardest workers then decided that, why should they work as hard just to have to give it away.  The whole system would collapse on itself.

 If you get into accusing rich people of not giving enough or caring enough, then you're going to get Mormon Free Thinker angry because you are "judging" the rich people as to their motives.  You don't know their situation.   He doesn't like judging.  

 

Actual wealth inequality in US.

SEE

[MormonFreeThinker]

mom and pop would go out of business and there would be more unemployment.  a doesn't need their help because he is clicking right along.  

The only reasonable response you are looking for is someone to say you are right.  

 

Many will go out of business because there is a significant number of people that can't afford to buy anything from a small business. See the video in post 162. 

If a small business owner cannot afford to pay his employees a living wage (enough for food and rent) he shouldn't have a small business, but it is unlikely to happen if all hard workers receive a living wage, see video. 

 

The small business owner will have a lot more customers if all hard workers in his area receive a living wage.  

See  http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm

 

Nobel prize-winning economists agree  

 

 

MFT,

I'm going to borrow one of your oft repeated requests.  Please go back and read 158 and answer the question.  This may give me a better idea where you are coming from.  The position of the taker or the giver.  

 

I did answer your question in post 162, read what President Hunter said. 

Edited November 4, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Ahab]

I've mentioned this in posts before. I am not against helping someone who is down on their luck and trying to get back up. I have done so in the past and be willing to do it again.

Like giving someone on the streets a few dollars, maybe even a $20. Oooh I just knew you had a charitable streak in you. Trouble is that money doesn't last very long and is not a long term solution even if you were to give him that much daily. A few people like you might be enough, though. You'd just have to work out a time and place to meet for his income. It's just "spare" change to you anyway, right?

What I am against is people coming into my business, knowing (this is key) when I'm not hiring, and asking for me to sign their sheet saying that they have inquired to maintain their unemployment status. Some are even so bold as to say that is exactly what they are doing. Some call on the phone and state right off the bat that they have to have three companies to put down and could they put mine as one. Those are lazy humans who should have benefits stripped away because I do view that as a form of stealing. I did offer one guy a job even though I didn't have one available (and I would have paid him and kept him). He couldn't get out of my store fast enough. Not sure he listed me.

Imagine this: the guy was laid off from a job that paid much more than you're offering and it's in his best financial interest to draw unemployment because he needs at least that much money to keep what he has accumulated...home mortgage, all his furniture, car payment, all his clothes, etc... than to lose it or most of it because a job you could offer wouldn't pay enough for him to keep it. So while he continues to look for a job that pays enough of an income he also tries to do what it takes to keep his unemployment pay coming in.

[Ahab]

double post, deleted

Edited November 4, 2014 by Ahab

[sdc999]

Actual wealth inequality in US.

SEE

I like that video.  I have seen it before and this time I watched it with several of my employees.  Quote from one guy.  "That would be great if those rich people would give me money.  Then I wouldn't have to work at all."  The other part timers didn't hesitate to pounce on his idiotic statement.  They've been pretty relentless on him all morning in fact.  They are all in their early 20s. 

This video also reminds me of my youngest daughter's class grades.  She's is the top 1%er.  Off the chart because she works her butt off.  She quit a sport that she loves to dedicate more time to being academically successful.  As  a result, the State of Texas will be glad to pick up her first year of tuition for her efforts.  Now, if her grades were redistributed amongst the rest..... well, I'm not sure I would have seen the same effort from her.

 

Many will go out of business because there is a significant number of people that can't afford to buy anything from a small business. See the video in post 162. 

If a small business owner cannot afford to pay his employees a living wage (enough for food and rent) he shouldn't have a small business, but it is unlikely to happen if all hard workers receive a living wage, see video. 

 

The small business owner will have a lot more customers if all hard workers in his area receive a living wage.  

See  http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm

 

Nobel prize-winning economists agree  

 

 

 

I did answer your question in post 162, read what President Hunter said. 

 

 Many go out of business for many reasons.   I would say the number one reason a new business goes out within the first year is that they did not go in with enough operating capital.  Many small business owners also open up a hobby vs a business with products that people actually need.  Your statement that small businesses shouldn't be if they cannont pay a living wage would condem millions and millions to the unemployment line.  That may be your goal.  I'm beginning to wonder. 

I just had a great conversation with the president of a medium size company.  His  company has about 45 locations throughout 3 states and he pays close to that $10 average.  His take is that we have not adjusted for inflation in a long time.  He also said if they were forced to go to 15$ an hour, they would, and all of their product would be 'repriced' to absord the cost.  He went on to say that would be just a temp fix as costs begin to rise to meet the new labor burden. 

 

 

Like giving someone on the streets a few dollars, maybe even a $20. Oooh I just knew you had a charitable streak in you. Trouble is that money doesn't last very long and is not a long term solution even if you were to give him that much daily. A few people like you might be enough, though. You'd just have to work out a time and place to meet for his income. It's just "spare" change to you anyway, right?

Imagine this: the guy was laid off from a job that paid much more than you're offering and it's in his best financial interest to draw unemployment because he needs at least that much money to keep what he has accumulated...home mortgage, all his furniture, car payment, all his clothes, etc... than to lose it or most of it because a job you could offer wouldn't pay enough for him to keep it. So while he continues to look for a job that pays enough of an income he also tries to do what it takes to keep his unemployment pay coming in.

So how much do you give to people other than your tithe?  Not the fast offering, just directly to another organization that can directly benefit others?   Yes, I have given 20's before but I do give a nice share and I am appreciated at several benefit auctions each year.   

The LDS harps and harps about not being in debt,    moth and dust corrupt....    He needs to keep what he has accumuted? You didn't mention the club membership, gym membership, $ for manicures for his spouse and the maid and yardman.     bahahahaha.   I like the idea of going into debt to have a responsible car, a roof over my head and a good education.   I would hope his furniture and clothes are paid for.  I hope is mortgage is not so much that adjusting lifestyles and/or income  would evict him from his castle.  Has he set aside a rainy day fund for hard times or just accumulated?

[MormonFreeThinker]

  Your statement that small businesses shouldn't be if they cannont pay a living wage would condem millions and millions to the unemployment line.  That may be your goal.  I'm beginning to wonder. 

 

Most small business owners will have enough, especially if all the hard workers in the area receive at least a living wage, he will get more customers. Millions and Millions have 2 or 3 jobs because they cannot afford food and rent with one job.  

 

You can read the links or watch the videos, it is simple. 

 

 

I just had a great conversation with the president of a medium size company.  His  company has about 45 locations throughout 3 states and he pays close to that $10 average.  His take is that we have not adjusted for inflation in a long time.  He also said if they were forced to go to 15$ an hour, they would, and all of their product would be 'repriced' to absord the cost.  He went on to say that would be just a temp fix as costs begin to rise to meet the new labor burden. 

 

There won't be such problems if all hard workers receive at least a living wage, see the videos and links. 

 

Anyways, most people that don't think all hard workers deserve a living wage, believe the Earth is less than 10,000 year old. 

Edited November 4, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[ksfisher]

 

Anyways, most people that don't believe all hard workers deserve a living wage, believe the Earth is less than 10,000 year old. 

 

????????????????????????????????????????????????

That is a weird statement, in a thread full of weird statements.

[Ahab]

I'm thinking about starting another thread now to talk about what I would do if I were rich, but it probably wouldn't be very long, because if I was rich, I wouldn't be rich for very long, and on purpose. I would find somebody to give my wealth to, so that at most I would be middle class. I only need so much to live well, and then after that point everything above that is extra and just more than I need. And even if I kept getting rich I would keep giving away the extra that I didn't need for myself. It's just the way I am and the way I want to continue to be. And it's the way I think all the rich should be too. The economy would be booming with all of that going on and everyone would eventually have all that they need.

[cinepro]

 

If a small business owner cannot afford to pay his employees a living wage (enough for food and rent) he shouldn't have a small business,

 

Can you explain to me what you mean by this?  Specifically, what do you mean by "food" and "rent"? And how does this work?

 

When I interview a potential employee, should I ask them to submit a sample menu of what they eat during the week (including dining out), and ask them what their rental costs are each month?  Suppose I interview someone who still lives at home (rent free, most meals paid for by parents).  Would it be moral for me to pay them $7/hr, while someone who lives in a nice townhome and eats at CPK twice a week (and shops at Bristol Farms) gets $22/hr for the same work?

 

"Food" and "rent" are extremely variable costs and will differ from person to person.  The idea that the morality (and legality) of certain wages could be tied to such ideas is absurd.

[Ahab]

Can you explain to me what you mean by this? Specifically, what do you mean by "food" and "rent"? And how does this work?

When I interview a potential employee, should I ask them to submit a sample menu of what they eat during the week (including dining out), and ask them what their rental costs are each month? Suppose I interview someone who still lives at home (rent free, most meals paid for by parents). Would it be moral for me to pay them $7/hr, while someone who lives in a nice townhome and eats at CPK twice a week (and shops at Bristol Farms) gets $22/hr for the same work?

"Food" and "rent" are extremely variable costs and will differ from person to person. The idea that the morality (and legality) of certain wages could be tied to such ideas is absurd.

He was talking about basic things money is often used for, and if you want to get really into this issue the idea of tieing things into money is what is really absurd. Service from anyone who is doing his or her best to help someone else is worth a lot more than money in any amount. Edited November 5, 2014 by Ahab

[MormonFreeThinker]

Can you explain to me what you mean by this?  Specifically, what do you mean by "food" and "rent"? And how does this work?

 

When I interview a potential employee, should I ask them to submit a sample menu of what they eat during the week (including dining out), and ask them what their rental costs are each month?  Suppose I interview someone who still lives at home (rent free, most meals paid for by parents).  Would it be moral for me to pay them $7/hr, while someone who lives in a nice townhome and eats at CPK twice a week (and shops at Bristol Farms) gets $22/hr for the same work?

 

"Food" and "rent" are extremely variable costs and will differ from person to person.  The idea that the morality (and legality) of certain wages could be tied to such ideas is absurd.

 

 Fast Food workers do not deserve enough money for a mansion, but they do deserve enough money for at least decent apartment.  In my area, the cheapest apartments are 450 dollars a month. If they live in a big beautiful house, rent is their problem, nobody has a moral obligation to pay a fast food worker enough for a big nice house. My point is that 7.25 an hour is not enough for a decent apartment, unless you work like 70 hours a week in 3 jobs.

Food for 1 person and three children is about 150 dollars a week.  

The Bills and Gasoline is about 200 - 300 dollars a month. 

 

How can someone survive with 7.25 an hour? Every hard worker deserves enough money to survive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[sdc999]

 Fast Food workers do not deserve enough money for a mansion, but they do deserve enough money for at least decent apartment.  In my area, the cheapest apartments are 450 dollars a month. If they live in a big beautiful house, rent is their problem, nobody has a moral obligation to pay a fast food worker enough for a big nice house. My point is that 7.25 an hour is not enough for a decent apartment, unless you work like 70 hours a week in 3 jobs.

Food for 1 person and three children is about 150 dollars a week.  

The Bills and Gasoline is about 200 - 300 dollars a month. 

 

How can someone survive with 7.25 an hour? Every hard worker deserves enough money to survive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But with your statement, you have indicated that they are also owed a car as well since they must have money for gas.  (which requires insurance, upkeep, etc)

Are they allowed to walk to work?  So we also have to wonder why three children without a spouse.  When they had a spouse or sperm donor (whichever)   you multiply that 7.25 x 30hrs x 4 weeks x 2people that were require to create 3 children and you now have 1740 mth.  And maybe one of the parents could have even had a second job to make sure the kids 'THEY CREATED' were taken care of.   Maybe if she kept a quarter between her knees, she wouldn't been supporting 3 children on her own with zero child support.   And where is extended family?  Is this single mother so wretched that even family no longer wants to support her?   

Having children is never easy financially even when you are making a living wage.  Having children when the bread winner is making minimum wage is less than smart.   

To borrow a phrase from John Wayne.  'Life is hard, and it harder if you're stupid."

 

Your repeated posts indicate that people should never have to struggle and that no one should EVER have consequences for their actions.  You're going to reply with employment is not in their control.  If you are that unstable in your employment, why do you want to bring a kid into that environment, much less, 3?    

 

Should people be helped when they are down on their luck?  you bet.  Should people be faced with consequences of their actions?  Absolutely. 

[mnn727]

 

 

Question

Is it better for a mother to have 2 or 3 low paying jobs?  or one modest paying job? The church teaches that mothers need time to educate their children. 

Mothers and Fathers should educate themselves so they do not need to have 2 or 3 low paying jobs.

[The Nehor]

But with your statement, you have indicated that they are also owed a car as well since they must have money for gas. (which requires insurance, upkeep, etc)

Are they allowed to walk to work? So we also have to wonder why three children without a spouse. When they had a spouse or sperm donor (whichever) you multiply that 7.25 x 30hrs x 4 weeks x 2people that were require to create 3 children and you now have 1740 mth. And maybe one of the parents could have even had a second job to make sure the kids 'THEY CREATED' were taken care of. Maybe if she kept a quarter between her knees, she wouldn't been supporting 3 children on her own with zero child support. And where is extended family? Is this single mother so wretched that even family no longer wants to support her?

Having children is never easy financially even when you are making a living wage. Having children when the bread winner is making minimum wage is less than smart.

To borrow a phrase from John Wayne. 'Life is hard, and it harder if you're stupid."

Your repeated posts indicate that people should never have to struggle and that no one should EVER have consequences for their actions. You're going to reply with employment is not in their control. If you are that unstable in your employment, why do you want to bring a kid into that environment, much less, 3?

Should people be helped when they are down on their luck? you bet. Should people be faced with consequences of their actions? Absolutely.

Could you pack a little more misogyny in there? We are almost to critical mass. Edited November 5, 2014 by The Nehor

[thesometimesaint]

Mothers and Fathers should educate themselves so they do not need to have 2 or 3 low paying jobs.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/thecollegebubble/2014/08/15/overqualified-and-underemployed-the-job-market-waiting-for-graduates/

[thesometimesaint]

sdc999:

No employer has ever given me anything. I've worked my a$$ off for every penny I've ever had. As the former COO of a medium sized company I made sure the company followed all the rules. We paid well.

[sdc999]

The Nehor,

You call asking for responsibility and accountability, misogyny?  hmm!

 

I may have to give up on this argument.  You and Veruca (aka Mormon Free Thinker) want everyone to have it and have it NOW!   Everyone is entitled to a good life without worry about who else should pay for it.  I'm reminded of the lady on the news with the multitude of kids by all different fathers yelling that 'someone needs to pay'.   I am not against sperm donors (they are not fathers) who refuse to pay child support being castrated and thrown into prison with hard labor. But it does take two to make that baby. 

[sdc999]

thesometimessaint,

 

That is a great story and the way it should be done.  congrats

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

But with your statement, you have indicated that they are also owed a car as well since they must have money for gas.  (which requires insurance, upkeep, etc)

Are they allowed to walk to work?  So we also have to wonder why three children without a spouse.  When they had a spouse or sperm donor (whichever)   you multiply that 7.25 x 30hrs x 4 weeks x 2people that were require to create 3 children and you now have 1740 mth.  And maybe one of the parents could have even had a second job to make sure the kids 'THEY CREATED' were taken care of.   Maybe if she kept a quarter between her knees, she wouldn't been supporting 3 children on her own with zero child support.   And where is extended family?  Is this single mother so wretched that even family no longer wants to support her?   

Having children is never easy financially even when you are making a living wage.  Having children when the bread winner is making minimum wage is less than smart.   

To borrow a phrase from John Wayne.  'Life is hard, and it harder if you're stupid."

 

Your repeated posts indicate that people should never have to struggle and that no one should EVER have consequences for their actions.  You're going to reply with employment is not in their control.  If you are that unstable in your employment, why do you want to bring a kid into that environment, much less, 3?    

 

Should people be helped when they are down on their luck?  you bet.  Should people be faced with consequences of their actions?  Absolutely. 

I am of the opinion that MFT does not live in the real world, I dont mean that in a bad way just that he lacks experience and perspective. I don't think he is married with kids. Like Nehor, they both lack real world experience. They both should get jobs that are commission only or go open up a business. Once they do that they will not argue the points they do. They will see how wrong their positions are. It seems no amount of discussion will help them.

[The Nehor]

The Nehor,

You call asking for responsibility and accountability, misogyny?  hmm!

 

I may have to give up on this argument.  You and Veruca (aka Mormon Free Thinker) want everyone to have it and have it NOW!   Everyone is entitled to a good life without worry about who else should pay for it.  I'm reminded of the lady on the news with the multitude of kids by all different fathers yelling that 'someone needs to pay'.   I am not against sperm donors (they are not fathers) who refuse to pay child support being castrated and thrown into prison with hard labor. But it does take two to make that baby.

You basically called for slut to keep their legs shut and conveniently lumped in all single parents under that designation. That is pretty much basic misogyny.

You have a wonderful caricature of the poor. Congratulations on hating and despising them and blaming all their misfortunes on them as the Lord commanded. Make sure to grind their faces too for extra credit.

[Ahab]

I am of the opinion that MFT does not live in the real world, I dont mean that in a bad way just that he lacks experience and perspective. I don't think he is married with kids. Like Nehor, they both lack real world experience. They both should get jobs that are commission only or go open up a business. Once they do that they will not argue the points they do. They will see how wrong their positions are. It seems no amount of discussion will help them.

I'd just like to see you and some other people acknowledge that rich people, and rich organizations, should be in the business of giving their wealth to poor people. Strategically and with careful consideration is fine, as long as they give generously while they are rich. It is what God wants them to do with their wealth.

[sdc999]

the nehor,

do you live in a box on the street?  There are young married couples who should not have kids either until they are a little more stable.  Keeping a quarter between her knees is a figure of speech.  Oh, maybe you thought in a literal sense.  There are plenty of methods to keep from getting pregnant - even if they are a slut as you say.  

Nothing applies to 100% of the situations every time.  There is always an exception. 

[thesometimesaint]

I am of the opinion that MFT does not live in the real world, I dont mean that in a bad way just that he lacks experience and perspective. I don't think he is married with kids. Like Nehor, they both lack real world experience. They both should get jobs that are commission only or go open up a business. Once they do that they will not argue the points they do. They will see how wrong their positions are. It seems no amount of discussion will help them.

 

Non Sequitur and Ad Hominem. Please address the argument, and not the person making the argument.

Edited November 5, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[The Nehor]

I am of the opinion that MFT does not live in the real world, I dont mean that in a bad way just that he lacks experience and perspective. I don't think he is married with kids. Like Nehor, they both lack real world experience. They both should get jobs that are commission only or go open up a business. Once they do that they will not argue the points they do. They will see how wrong their positions are. It seems no amount of discussion will help them.

I go to management meetings every month where we make decisions on how to operate our business (the corporation is based in Europe) throughout the entire United States so you can cut the ad hominem condescension. I know how to run a business. I am afraid I now have to CFR you for your qualifications to speak on this matter so I can determine whether you have enough experience to be qualified to have an opinion.

the nehor,

do you live in a box on the street?  There are young married couples who should not have kids either until they are a little more stable.  Keeping a quarter between her knees is a figure of speech.  Oh, maybe you thought in a literal sense.  There are plenty of methods to keep from getting pregnant - even if they are a slut as you say.  

Nothing applies to 100% of the situations every time.  There is always an exception.

I live quite well. If all goes according to my current financial plan (who knows if that will happen?) I will be a millionaire before I turn 45.

Your counsel to wait for financial stability before having children is directly opposed to apostolic counsel as is your counsel that because people deserve their fate we should leave them to suffer in it.