The Soul of Man Under Socialism
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/wilde_soul.html
Once again, I fall even more in love with Oscar Wilde. He agrees with me fully on almost every single point he raises in his essay. It sums up how I feel better than I can on all but the most modern of issues.
Your thoughts?
Since he's been dead over 100 years, I'd say he doesn't agree with you, but you with him.
Yes in the 1800s people were wishing for a workable socalist utopia.... they still are, because in practice it doesn't work. It flys in the face of basic human hardwiring that has enabled man to survive and flourish. It was and will remain a pipe dream. :grouphug:
The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody. In fact, scarcely any one at all escapes.
Is it Backwards Day again?
Yeah, his whole argument seems to be that it is a chore to have to choose to help the less-fortunate, and we would all in fact be happier if this were mandated and done for us because then we wouldn't have to think about it.
I thought Socialists/Communists were supposed to be atheists, soul?
Must be backward day.
If one man works harder, invents more than another, his work is his, to do with as he/she pleases. State theft is still theft & still immoral.
Yet, capitalism will create an imbalance in class and it isn't fair to the people born into poverty.
Trying to be fair all of the time isn't fair. Some people do better than other, some families have more than others, just the facts.
If you are born to a family that has superior genetics in one area, should you be handicapped, lobotomy, have your Achilles clipped perhaps?
Fair, stupid concept.
Socialism and communism always sound so nice, but they never take into account that people (IMO) are by nature greedy. Capitalism has its bad side, but I'll take it over anything else any day.
But what if the person with the better genes is held back to begin with? Everyone should have the same starting point and let the strong pull away from the weak and then the next generation the same process continues.
Socialism and communism always sound so nice, but they never take into account that people (IMO) are by nature greedy. Capitalism has its bad side, but I'll take it over anything else any day.
I have wondered this many times. Are humans naturally greedy or greedy because we have been raised in a capitalistic society, which is greedy by nature?
I would like to know if we could train humans to effectively live in a far left society (anarchism to communism).
But what if the person with the better genes is held back to begin with? Everyone should have the same starting point and let the strong pull away from the weak and then the next generation the same process continues.
Are you saying you would agree to holding those with natural talents back?:eek:
You are born with the same opportunities to do well or screw-up, there are advantages and disadvantages to wealth and being poor. I know wealthy kids that grew-up with no ambition and poor kids that have excelled due to the road-blocks they had to overcome.
You play the hand you are dealt as well as you can.
My communist/socialist scenario:
Woods, cabin A, cabin B.
A busts ass all summer/spring long chopping wood, growing and putting up veggies, hunting and storing meat, repairing and maintaining cabin so it is tight and dry, barn is large and in good shape for animals, plenty of hay harvested for the long winter, working hard all season long, taking care of well so there is plenty of fresh water.
Cabin B
Lazy, just enough to get by all summer and spring, traded cow for wood and drink, not really harvesting or growing much at all, not really doing many repairs much less any maintenance.
Winter hits and it is a doozy, cabin A has just enough to get by safely with enough to be able to have enough to continue to survive after the winter into the following seasons.
It is clear that cabin B will die after the second month of snow.
No sane person would think that it is ok to "distribute" cabin A's hard work to cabin B so they both die... he/she should die as their obvious suicide intended.
It does not matter if cabin A was, perhaps, a bit smarter, stronger or naturally more talented in farming arts, some of us just have to try harder.
It could have just as easily been the other way around with B being the more talented and A working four times as hard to do ten times as much.
I grew-up on a ranch/farm and I know this scenario, if you don’t do, you don’t get.
This does not apply to the disabled and mentally ill, but being lazy is not a mental illness or disability, those who work harder and apply themselves should get paid more, those who save and invest more wisely should reap the benefits of those wise habits, it is right and, ironically, fair, even though that is not relevant… what is, is that it is just.
I am dyslexic in math, it is very, very hard for me, but I have a near photographic memory and extremely fast at making spatial and abstract connections.
I had to work three times harder in math than average students, but loved the higher math classes and physics.
In lit, art, writing, and those kinds of classes I, literally, never studied. Cannot tell you how many times I have had the words "it is not fair" said to me in regards to my grades/test scores... bullshit.
I graduated on the national presidents list, Gold Key… now, my math was torture. Most like me actually went to the school and were tested so they could get their math requirements waived. I just worked harder, studied three times as much as most, so my degree was real, earned and not given with a caveat. I would not have been able to accept that.
Is it fair when the lion eats the gazelle or if the lion cubs go hungry, when one pride does better than another?
It is a stupid word.
Natural selection is the way of the world; the human race is no different.
I believe that humans are naturally greedy - nature supports this.
But I don't believe that contributing to society, to community is theft. I don't believe in extreme forms of socialism, where people are not left with any benefits from their own work. But I also do not believe that leaving those incapable (for whatever reason) to support themselves in conditions of squalour (in developed countries) or to die (in undeveloped countries) is theft.
I have no religion and I'm quite hard when it comes to the sanctity of human life, but I believe people should be given a living chance. I believe in charity, but I also believe people should sometimes be obliged to give for the greater good. I think many posters here will disagree fundemantally.
In a trite analogy - I haven't paid UT a penny since coming here. But I have £20 ($40) which comes out of my bank account every payday to Save the Children and Help the Aged. I also give spare change to any charity around when I have it (have mentioned before, was brought up on the Gospel of St Matthew).
I'm not suggesting UT is a charitable cause, but he wasn't in my face. I've benefited from his community without contributing. I will in future. That's not theft. I appreciate it's not set up in a socialist way (enter your salary, we will bill your card the appropriate amount). But neither is it capitalist - which is a world which wants to exclude people like me who are basically honest, but pure dreadful with money.
I believe that humans are naturally greedy - nature supports this.
But I don't believe that contributing to society, to community is theft. I don't believe in extreme forms of socialism, where people are not left with any benefits from their own work. But I also do not believe that leaving those incapable (for whatever reason) to support themselves in conditions of squalour (in developed countries) or to die (in undeveloped countries) is theft.
I have no religion and I'm quite hard when it comes to the sanctity of human life, but I believe people should be given a living chance. I believe in charity, but I also believe people should sometimes be obliged to give for the greater good. I think many posters here will disagree fundemantally.
In a trite analogy - I haven't paid UT a penny since coming here. But I have £20 ($40) which comes out of my bank account every payday to Save the Children and Help the Aged. I also give spare change to any charity around when I have it (have mentioned before, was brought up on the Gospel of St Matthew).
I'm not suggesting UT is a charitable cause, but he wasn't in my face. I've benefited from his community without contributing. I will in future. That's not theft. I appreciate it's not set up in a socialist way (enter your salary, we will bill your card the appropriate amount). But neither is it capitalist - which is a world which wants to exclude people like me who are basically honest, but pure dreadful with money.
No, forced contribution is theft. Charity is not.
Science, and just looking around, shows that we are not naturally greedy. If that were so, all would just be chaos. We take care of each other far more than the opposite.
I wish to pay UT and plan to soon. This is not a charity by any stretch of the imagination, we USE this site, we GAIN from it. That it is voluntary in no way suggests that it is charitable.
My communist/socialist scenario:
Woods, cabin A, cabin B.
A busts ass all summer/spring long chopping wood, growing and putting up veggies, hunting and storing meat, repairing and maintaining cabin so it is tight and dry, barn is large and in good shape for animals, plenty of hay harvested for the long winter, working hard all season long, taking care of well so there is plenty of fresh water.
Cabin B
Lazy, just enough to get by all summer and spring, traded cow for wood and drink, not really harvesting or growing much at all, not really doing many repairs much less any maintenance.
Winter hits and it is a doozy, cabin A has just enough to get by safely with enough to be able to have enough to continue to survive after the winter into the following seasons.
It is clear that cabin B will die after the second month of snow.
No sane person would think that it is ok to "distribute" cabin A's hard work to cabin B so they both die... he/she should die as their obvious suicide intended.
It does not matter if cabin A was, perhaps, a bit smarter, stronger or naturally more talented in farming arts, some of us just have to try harder.
It could have just as easily been the other way around with B being the more talented and A working four times as hard to do ten times as much.
But that's bullshit. Sure, it happens sometimes, but I think a better scenario would be:
Cabin A and fifty of cabin A's paid buddies grow all their food very quickly and efficiently. So it goes, A has the cash to pay the buddies, fine. But with his cash A also grabbed all the decent land around cabin B and is paying B enough to survive on over the summer to grow food for A. Consequently, B doesnt have any land to grow food on, nor the time to grow his own food because he's growing food for A for pitiful wages. Winter rolls around and A has a massive store of food, wheras B is already freezing to death and starving to boot.
Now, A has two options. A can be charitable, nice, and reasonable and give B some food, or can just blame B for the lack of food.
What anarchosocialism proposes is
not that A
has to give B anything, but that society should be restructured so that A would
willingly give B the food because thats just how it should be.
No sane person would think that it is ok for B to starve because A had more money to begin with.
LOL, so you just changed the parameters of the scenario (one where both are equal) to fit your ideal situation instead of dealing with it? Hilarious!
Worker A and B are on the job, A works harder, smarter and faster, he gets the raise and eventually the promotion & management position... that is as it should be.
Perhaps you can't screw that one up.
I understand you want to deny that some people work harder than others, but it is a fact.
Because that's not the REAL situation that the entire concept deals with.
Two people starting equal are two people starting equal. That is not and will not ever be a problem in society. The problem comes that they DON'T start equally.
Did you even read the essay?
It is also a fact that some people come by their wealth or good fortune by working less hard than others. Just because you work your arse off doesn't mean you have the same opportunities or outcomes.
I have wondered this many times. Are humans naturally greedy or greedy because we have been raised in a capitalistic society, which is greedy by nature?
People tend to take care of themselves and the people close to them first. If grabbing more than your fair share (greed) allows you to take care of things more comfortably, it's natural to do so.
Humans survive by nature, and amassing plenty tends to ensure survival (and cause heart-disease, et al).
Two people starting equal are two people starting equal. That is not and will not ever be a problem in society. The problem comes that they DON'T start equally.
Some of the most successful people start at or near the bottom. Being disadvantaged either makes you give up or puts a fire in your belly.
I think the artificial equality of communism/anarchism/whatever breeds contempt and laziness.
Re: the A and B scenario...you don't kill off a group you depend on (or exploit), you give them just enough to keep the benefit (until a more beneficial choice comes along)
rkzenrage......what?
I think everyone should start out at the same point no matter where your parents stand. Kids in the inner city should have an equal chance as the kids in the suburbs. There are many problems with this, especially social pressures and we should be working on fixing these right now.
I am not a communist or a hardcore socialist but I do believe that no one should die in our country as long as they give an effort to contribute to society. This means that instead of just handing out welfare, we make them do community service. There are many solutions to our problem but people are just avoiding the issue because it will involve a lot of work.
I believe that it is a first world nation’s duty to make sure everyone within its borders is alive and have at least a decent chance to succeeding. Even though welfare and theft is a very good argument, people will have to sacrifice to live in the country like this.
The world is not, nor ever will be, fair. With that in mind I tend to like the Scandinavian model of socialism. You can still use your natural talents to accrue wealth but _some_ of that wealth is distributed. To me it's no different than paying for public roads: it benefits the entire society.
It is also a fact that some people come by their wealth or good fortune by working less hard than others. Just because you work your arse off doesn't mean you have the same opportunities or outcomes.
Exactly, some people work smart... good for them, they deserve what they get, perhaps doubly so.
rkzenrage......what?
I think everyone should start out at the same point no matter where your parents stand. Kids in the inner city should have an equal chance as the kids in the suburbs. There are many problems with this, especially social pressures and we should be working on fixing these right now.
I am not a communist or a hardcore socialist but I do believe that no one should die in our country as long as they give an effort to contribute to society. This means that instead of just handing out welfare, we make them do community service. There are many solutions to our problem but people are just avoiding the issue because it will involve a lot of work.
I believe that it is a first world nation’s duty to make sure everyone within its borders is alive and have at least a decent chance to succeeding. Even though welfare and theft is a very good argument, people will have to sacrifice to live in the country like this.
So, if I invent something and people buy it or I just work very hard and I make a lot of money you feel that my children should not benefit from it?
I think that is nuts, natural selection works for a
reason.:eek:
If we were naturally greedy there would not be so damn many of us LOOK people. We are the most benevolent animal there is.
However, handicapping the most successful of us harms the species, it is stupid to do so. They should be encouraged.
We are lucky Gates did not just pack his toys and go home when we spit in his face recently, many of us would have, he would have been justified in doing so. I would not have blamed him, I would have sold recent products to the US and nations that did not sue him and products five years behind them to all other nations as a result. That would have been fair.
rkz...my point wasn't necessarily the same as yours. You can be the best, hardest working ditch digger in the world, but chances are you'll be in that ditch for the rest of your life. It doesn't mean you work any less hard. Just that your chances in life are limited.
I have been a ditch digger, a crap scooper, a bouncer, and other shitty jobs, dyslexic, with arthritis (and the others that I did not know about at the time)... chose to bust my ass and get a college degree by working my way through while the others stayed, chose.
Anyone can.
I don't agree with the word 'chose'. Not everyone gets the same choices because society doesn't support everyone equally.
Differen't people have different motivations. I doubt anyone else's would be the same as yours. Just as mine are not the same anyone elses, or anyone elses' the same as mine.
I don't buy into your argument, which is one demonstration as to why there will always be proponents for both sides, which is good because it means (hopefully) that democratic societies don't become wholly engulfed by one side or the other.
So, you patronize when someone disagrees with you and you don't believe in free-will?
No point in discussing this with an automaton.
As you can see, I edited my response to your previous post immediately, but the outcome is the same. You 'choose' to look only at yourself and not society at large to prove your point. This leads to a very one sided hypothesis when discussing an issue which concerns people who aren't you.
I was given no "up" or help. I worked for four years between my AA and BFA and worked all the way through both.
Society? The richest man in the US did not go to College and helped create his own market, the other did not finish high-school and was not rich to begin with. As a whole, our nation was built by self-starters and achievers who started from the middle or lower... I am not looking at myself only. Your ability to see into my head is astonishing.
the people you are noting are the exception, not the norm, therefore, they only account for a very small percentage of society at large and therefore do not provide relevant statistical data.
Consider the number of people born at or below the poverty line, and then consider the number of people who have become independantly wealthy from those origins. If this is an 'average' outcome, then I will accept your argument. If it's not, then your argument has no foundation.
So, you feel that if you are born poor you cannot better yourself? Free-will does not enter into it?
I'm just an anomaly?
My argument is as I first stated. Sometimes no matter how hard you try, your circumstances will stay the same, through no fault of your own.
I do accept that there are those in society who benefit from the hard work of others, and I also accept that sometimes it's possible to improve your situation in life. To rise above your poor beginings perhaps.
The thing I don't accept is that it's possible for everyone to do so. For one thing, if everyone did, the economy would crash quicker than you could blink.
Also, note that if there were no people requiring state assistance in any way, then there'd be a lot of people out of work. Your premise also surmises that everyone is honest and becomes wealthy via legitimate or moral means, a fact which you must surely acknowledge is not the case in many cases.
Those self-made people are very rare and sometimes things go wrong. Just because someone doesn’t have extreme creativity, extreme hard work ethic, and damn good luck doesn’t mean they should be stuck in poverty for the rest of their life.
I don't think that a child of a rich family shouldn't enjoy luxuries, just that the child shouldn't have an advantage in getting a good job than a kid raised in a poor family. They both should have to prove that they are better than the other.
Rkzenrage, I don't know if you are understanding or what. I think the person who works the hardest and proves that they are the best should get the best jobs, not just the best from rich families.
By the way, we have no free will or very limited free will.
I just wrote three pages and it did not post *shoves nail into eye*... perhaps later.
The nail probably wont help. ;) Sorry, there isn't a squint smilie
My argument is as I first stated. Sometimes no matter how hard you try, your circumstances will stay the same, through no fault of your own.
I do accept that there are those in society who benefit from the hard work of others, and I also accept that sometimes it's possible to improve your situation in life. To rise above your poor beginings perhaps.
The thing I don't accept is that it's possible for everyone to do so. For one thing, if everyone did, the economy would crash quicker than you could blink.
Also, note that if there were no people requiring state assistance in any way, then there'd be a lot of people out of work. Your premise also surmises that everyone is honest and becomes wealthy via legitimate or moral means, a fact which you must surely acknowledge is not the case in many cases.
True, sometimes you stay, some times a ditch digger is a ditch digger due to no fault of his/her own. He/she may not be motivated enough.
When I left I had to go to class dead tired instead of deciding, making the choice, to sit on the couch or go to bed those nights after digging. He/she may not have the natural talents to do well in school, just a fact, no fault of theirs or the schools… they may have to work harder an many get discouraged, but quitting will be their choice. He/she may like their life, OMG!!!!
No, it is not possible for everyone to do everything, but it is possible for everyone to find their place. Again, excluding the truly disabled/mentally handicapped, lack of motivation is neither. You know what makes my point wonderfully, guys and gals that are “special’ often have to FIGHT for the right to work and have their own place (I was a coach for the Special Olympics).
The ones that choose to are always awesome workers and keep their places spotless. Free-will & choice is the difference.
That there would be less state workers sucking-up our taxes if more people did well is not a valid point. That would be a wonderful thing.
Those self-made people are very rare and sometimes things go wrong. Just because someone doesn’t have extreme creativity, extreme hard work ethic, and damn good luck doesn’t mean they should be stuck in poverty for the rest of their life.
I don't think that a child of a rich family shouldn't enjoy luxuries, just that the child shouldn't have an advantage in getting a good job than a kid raised in a poor family. They both should have to prove that they are better than the other.
Rkzenrage, I don't know if you are understanding or what. I think the person who works the hardest and proves that they are the best should get the best jobs, not just the best from rich families.
By the way, we have no free will or very limited free will.
I strongly disagree. I have worked and gone to class all over the US and in every office and classroom I can honestly say there has not been, within arm’s length, someone who was from a poor, or poorer, background, working their way up. Many working two jobs, going to school while raising a family! In LA, you get the added degree to the slope they are climbing of their being “Mexican”, most are not but if they look Hispanic they are automatically “Mexican” to 80% of the idiots in the business community. But, do they complain, no? They CHOOSE to suck it up and prefer to fight on equal footing. I have heard that many times. Here in FL, OMG, the neck backgrounds, rife with meth and booze and yet they plug away, working on their dialect every day (I know this because I help). Again, I have never been in a class or office without someone working to improve.
It is not the exception, it is the norm.
How do you take the advantage away from the rich child? I am very curious about this.
Do you propose to make home-schooling, private schools, prep-schools & boarding schools illegal? Frats? Private college? How?
They should not have luxuries? Why not?
As for the job, their diction, grammar, dialect, people they know, places they have been, school’s shirt, frat pin on his lapel, prep tie, mason’s ring & handshake, vocabulary, etc, etc, etc… is going to go away, um… how?
Natural selection… the big lion’s daughter gets the gazelle… how it is supposed to be.
This is a long post and I am not going to give you a history lesson, I am just going to say this. I am right about this.
America was predominantly built by self-made men and women. Many of them freed slaves, under classes like Irish whom were treated like dogs and a great many uneducated individuals, who, through the pure power of free-will, choice and drive changed the world… for us it has been the norm, not the exception.
The way you see it is the way it is from your perspective rkz. Only yours. Oh for sure there are others who think the way you do, but not everyone.
As to America, well I'm applying my argument to Australia. Being a country based on a democratic, two party system, I'd say the same argument applies.
Yes there are opportunities for people to take up and yes I sometimes look at the news and think, "why doesn't that arsehole go get a job instead of complaining about what the government doesn't give him". Over here there are people who live their whole lives on welfare or who get no welfare because they're homeless. The thing is, in Australia, BECAUSE of the social services offered, there's no reason for people to be homeless. That is a fact. And yet people are. Is it easier to have no home? I doubt it. The persecution alone would be enough to make most people stop being homeless. So why do people choose to be homeless? Without writing a thesis, that's something I can't answer.
The thing is, you can't say it's ok to make a personal choice and then condemn someone for making a choice you don't like. You can't condemn someone from a disadvantaged background who doesn't choose to take the same path as you.
As to America being built by self-made men and women. I wonder what the indigenous inhabitants have to say about that?
I strongly disagree. I have worked and gone to class... Again, I have never been in a class or office without someone working to improve.
It is not the exception, it is the norm.
I think we were talking about different things with this unless I totally missed something from your post. Are you saying that people are all over the US are working to improve their social status? I would agree with this. I don't think people everywhere are going from lower class to multi-millionaires but are jumping from lower lower class to upper lower class. Do you not think that the children of these people deserve to get as good of an education as the people in the upper middle class?
How do you take the advantage away from the rich child? I am very curious about this.
I am against banning private and home schooling. If someone has the money to send their kids to private schools then by all means send them but an inner city
public school should be at least close to a suburban
public school. Right now the differences are astronomical. As I said before, we can't just throw money into inner city schools and expect it to fix itself; we will have to find all the social problems (you named a good amount), and try to work on fixing those. Many of them we can not solve but our first goal should be to try end the poverty trap.
The way you see it is the way it is from your perspective rkz. Only yours. Oh for sure there are others who think the way you do, but not everyone.
As to America, well I'm applying my argument to Australia. Being a country based on a democratic, two party system, I'd say the same argument applies.
Yes there are opportunities for people to take up and yes I sometimes look at the news and think, "why doesn't that arsehole go get a job instead of complaining about what the government doesn't give him". Over here there are people who live their whole lives on welfare or who get no welfare because they're homeless. The thing is, in Australia, BECAUSE of the social services offered, there's no reason for people to be homeless. That is a fact. And yet people are. Is it easier to have no home? I doubt it. The persecution alone would be enough to make most people stop being homeless. So why do people choose to be homeless? Without writing a thesis, that's something I can't answer.
The thing is, you can't say it's ok to make a personal choice and then condemn someone for making a choice you don't like. You can't condemn someone from a disadvantaged background who doesn't choose to take the same path as you.
As to America being built by self-made men and women. I wonder what the indigenous inhabitants have to say about that?
I am not condemning anyone? How are you reading that into my posts?
Many of the homeless are mentally ill, it is something that is rarely addressed and needs to be.
I was born here and have been discussing it with you.
Apache and Cherokee are a decent size of my make-up, but I don't think that means anything. The local native Americas tend to be FAR richer than everyone else... you like to gamble? You smoke?
I think we were talking about different things with this unless I totally missed something from your post. Are you saying that people are all over the US are working to improve their social status? I would agree with this. I don't think people everywhere are going from lower class to multi-millionaires but are jumping from lower lower class to upper lower class. Do you not think that the children of these people deserve to get as good of an education as the people in the upper middle class?
I am against banning private and home schooling. If someone has the money to send their kids to private schools then by all means send them but an inner city public school should be at least close to a suburban public school. Right now the differences are astronomical. As I said before, we can't just throw money into inner city schools and expect it to fix itself; we will have to find all the social problems (you named a good amount), and try to work on fixing those. Many of them we can not solve but our first goal should be to try end the poverty trap.
I don't see where comparing everyone to millionaires is valid.
Yes, it would be great if everyone could have the same education, and we should work toward that, and I think we are working toward that (at least until Every Child Left Behind) but we will get rid of it soon. Our schools get better every year, the stats you see on television are skewed, just like violence, murder, etc... all those are down and have been going down for years, but the press finds one bad number and does it's best to sell fear because it raises their numbers. If our schools were so bad other nations would not be doing what they can to send their kids here to get an education.
If people want that kind of education for their kids they are going to have to do their best to see to it that their community school gets what it needs by getting involved or moving to a better district. The first thing we did when looking for our home the last time we moved before this one, checked the schools.
Inner city schools.....who is "we". I taught in a poor district. It is not just the school. If your kids are fighting, refusing to do their work and not in class half the time, it is NOT the school nor the teacher's fault, nor is it the school's job to raise the kids.
Society is the vessel in which we deposit our 'natural rights', that is the rights which we are naturally heir to, but which we as individuals have no mechanism to defend. It is a compact, but, as it is virtually impossible for a human to remove themselves entirely from 'society', it is a compact made by our ancestors which we have inherited. If individuals whose rights and liberties are deposited in society are worse off than they would be, were that society not to exist, then 'society' has failed its purpose.
On these terms, Capitalism if tempered can be seen to succeed; Socialism, if tempered can be seen to succeed. Without tempering both produce a situation which allows a number of people to be much, much better off than they would otherwise be, and a number likewise, to be much, much worse off than they would otherwise be.
At the point where societies were being formed, certain inheritances were gained by some and lost to others. There are people who have transcended those gains and losses (through social mobility), but the majority of people in Western society, though they may increase in properity and opportunity from one generation to the next, do not move in relation to the rest of their generation. Look at the major wealthy and politically powerful families in America and also in Europe. Whilst the Europeans are obviously drawn from a 'ruling' class, America's elite is less obvious, but it clearly exists and it gains only a few newcomers in any generation. This is the disinheritance of the majority of citizens, who have deposited their rights into the nation's safekeeping, just as much as have the ruling elite, yet have inherited a distinctly different set of interests and opportunities (real not theoretical). This is why those, who have across generations improved their familys' interests and built an inheritance of power and influence, often at the expense of their workers' best interests, have a duty to the generations who have followed those workers, inheriting from them their lesser stake.
I have wondered this many times. Are humans naturally greedy or greedy because we have been raised in a capitalistic society, which is greedy by nature?
Pierce, just think back to when you were three or four -- and if that doesn't give you a clear picture, think back to when you were under five and had siblings. How did you react -- mentally as well as physically -- when encouraged, or flat told, to share? Was there not a certain -- resistance?
It's not so unexpected that the living organism seeks its own advantage.
I would like to know if we could train humans to effectively live in a far left society (anarchism to communism).
The short answer is No.
Longer answers may be found even in fiction writing: LeGuin's
The Dispossessed, Zamyatin's
We. Cautionary tales all. Over on StrikeTheRoot, a libertarian BBS, there's a quote bandied about whose author at present escapes me though I'll see if Google can net him: "Communism -- interesting idea. Wrong species."
Sure enough, StrikeTheRoot yields the name of Edmund O. Wilson. Other quotes cite either E.O. Wilson or Edward Wilson... Googley moogley lickety split... more careful checking in a little bit...
Sigh... Google's leaving me none the wiser. It doesn't help that there was an Edward O. Wilson, famous in entomology, and with a name similar enough that the two were indeed confused from time to time. To get to the bottom of this minor point means doing more digging, and likely in a different hole.
My son shared/shares naturally, he wanted to from the giddyup. He has always derived great joy from it.
Dana, I don't buy "natural rights", any more than I do "evil". There is not morality bubble out there sending absolutes out to the universe just waiting for us to pick-up on the pure black and white of it all.
These definitions are made by us and each species/culture/era as we go along.
The outrage we feel at young people having sex with older was not felt when "apprenticeships" existed from ancient Greece to Shakespeare's time... it was consensual and expected in those circles.
Morality is in your imagination.
Teaching kids that they will suffer for all eternity if they do not do what the sky man tells them to no matter how impossible due to the duality of the rules of the sky god is not child abuse?
No.
Because it is the norm in our society.
For now.
Some day it may be looked upon very differently.
No Urbane, we have been trained to be greedy by that point. By that age, we are told that we should share while our parents have their car, their house, their money, and their clothes. No one on this Earth has been raised in an environment where possession doesn't exist. Right now, as far as we know, we can not tell if our greedy nature is genetic or socially influenced.
If it is genetic then every far left economic system is doomed to failure.
If it is socially influenced, then a far left eutopia-like society (notice the spelling) might be possible.
Dana, I don't buy "natural rights", any more than I do "evil".
Fair enough :P I was just rehashing Paine:)
Dana, can you define which rights you feel we surrender to the government and which rights we retain to steward ourselves? :confused:
Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.:)
Why not start listing what might be considered natural rights?
I'll start off with one.
The right to breath as deeply and as often as one likes.
The right to the fruit of our labor & to pass it to our progeny.
You really don't seem to understand anarcho/libertarian socialism at all, rkzenrage.
Totalitarian socialism is 'you worked, now give it to us and we might give you some back'
Anarchosocialism is 'you worked, now keep what you want/need and if you can find the slightest bit of empathy somewhere in your heart give away what you dont need to those who need it.'
Anarchosocialism is 'you worked, now keep what you want/need and if you can find the slightest bit of empathy somewhere in your heart give away what you dont need to those who need it.'
But you realize this is the exact opposite of what Wilde was writing about here, right? He goes on about how awful it is to have to live your life for someone else (i.e., to have empathy and choose to take care of the less fortunate) and would rather it was mandatory so he wouldn't have to think about it.
I do believe in giving to others and sharing a portion of what I have.
That portion must be pre-set in advance, cannot be changed at random and must not be on income, but only what you physically own alone so you cannot be double taxed on the same amount.
Also, the amount taxed must be voted on by the people, not the leaders and I believe in a fixed percentage only.
geez I thought it'd take at least a few more posts to get to tax.
What about the right to live free of oppression?
What oppression? Where does that come in?
Make that one of yours... but you have to define oppression. Is a tax oppression? Is hearing another's free speech oppression? Is having to work for your own food if you are lazy oppression?
It means people have a natural right to live free of oppression. That is slavery or servitude etc. People have the right to be free.
I've been having a think about the tax thing. I guess if we're talking about the natural rights of people, I wouldn't suggest they have a natural right to be taxed. It wouldn't be desirable.
natural rights are intangible in the main part aren't they?
I would not say that.
I feel that there are some inalienable rights, if you believe in freedom.
stop editing your posts right after you post them. lol
Best time to edit them... when they are soft and fresh.
lol...if you say so. That post sounded kind of gross...in an intangible sort of way.
Come on... you like hot fresh gooey posts and you know it!
OH ok....I admit it. I'm a sucker for the soft mushy ones. All the better to sink my teeth into. ;)
lol...I can't. The soft posts just keep coming.
we are talking about metaphorical teeth and online posts now aren't we?
that's ok then.
Now back to the topic at hand...
natural rights?
Men have the right to NO TEETH!!!!
most men are born with no teeth. :)
But you realize this is the exact opposite of what Wilde was writing about here, right? He goes on about how awful it is to have to live your life for someone else (i.e., to have empathy and choose to take care of the less fortunate) and would rather it was mandatory so he wouldn't have to think about it.
No, he said restructure society so that they were taken care of in a libertarian way - not by the government but by a
societal kind of mandatoryness - play nice or leave kinda thing. That's still no-government, and still therefore not
really mandatory.
God, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have all freedoms in one politcal government. It is my freedom to make as much money at the expense of others and it is also my freedom to persue happiness which is impossible when I have to work two minimum wage jobs to feed my children. These two scenarios can not work together so you will either have to pick one or try to find the middle ground between them.
God, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have all freedoms in one politcal government. It is my freedom to make as much money at the expense of others and it is also my freedom to persue happiness which is impossible when I have to work two minimum wage jobs to feed my children. These two scenarios can not work together so you will either have to pick one or try to find the middle ground between them.
Under what scenario involving the 'freedom to make as much money at the expense of others' are you forced to have children and support them with two minimum wage jobs?
--Joe
Ummm.....America right now. If you don't think that it is damn near impossible for some people to get out of poverty you are very naive.
Ummm.....America right now. If you don't think that it is damn near impossible for some people to get out of poverty you are very naive.
There's no need to hide an ad hom behind a conditional that you know is true, come out and say it!
I'll grant you this reprive, I'll consider that you never adopted this weak position regarding my naivette. It's really, really not something that you want me to call you on.
Let's assume that neither of us is naive, only arrogant.
In fact, my wife and I have lived quite comfortably on about $15,000 a year. I don't think that you are taking into account the low cost of an Associates Degree or the availability of student loans.
Aside from mental issues, there is no reason why a young single or couple, acting frugally and responsibly, shouldn't be able to get a decent paying job and live very comfortably.
Now, if you still disagree, let me know. We can work together to find which factors you are willfully dismissing.
--Joe
I personally know several people who have made fortunes coming from true poverty in the US, it is easier to do here than anywhere else.
You can do it easily here too if you have the desire to. I think there are less people here who care that much about getting rich though. Or maybe we're all just too lazy to bother. :)
It was not my point I was just commenting on it. I would not want to be truly rich, I have seen what it is and don't want anything to do with it any more than I want fame.
I know people that have come out of poverty to live good lives but their desire is so much greater than average it is hard to call it a norm to get out.
Aside from mental issues, there is no reason why a young single or couple, acting frugally and responsibly, shouldn't be able to get a decent paying job and live very comfortably.
I just can't get myself to believe that 40% (or so) of the population is irresponsible, but a catch that I can't see. Unless by that you mean spending next to nothing which can work for some people but not for everyone.
I wouldn't call it the norm to get out either. You weren't discussing norms, however.
Ummm.....America right now. If you don't think that it is damn near impossible for some people to get out of poverty you are very naive.
Here is my complete answer. You claim that it is 'damn near impossible' for some people to get out of poverty. Let's disregard the mentally and physically handicapped. Anybody currently in poverty can do one of the following to get into the middle class:
1: Over the course of two years, find an unskilled manual labor job that pays a reasonable starting wage.
2: Over the course of four years in a minimum wage job, attain an associates degree to qualify for skilled manual or office work. Over the course of the following two years, find a job in that field.
Would you assert that there is anyone in America that can't do one of those two things? Is there anyone that can not become an HVAC technician in this country? Is there anyone who can not get an AS in Business and become an office mail boy? You say "some people," who are these "some people" who can not achieve a modicum of skill and find an employer who desires it?
I didn't suggest that 40% of America is irresponsible. I'm not sure where you got that number in particular; a little Google-ing suggests that ~12% of Americans live in poverty. I said that anyone who acts frugally and responsibly can get out of poverty. There is another half of the equation. They must make such an achievement a sincere goal.
So, my fully qualified position is that anybody who forms the sincere goal of lifting themselves out of poverty, even unto the middle class, can do so providing that they act responsibly.
I responded to your original post because I felt that you were forming an allegorical America:
God, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have all freedoms in one politcal government. It is my freedom to make as much money at the expense of others and it is also my freedom to persue happiness which is impossible when I have to work two minimum wage jobs to feed my children. These two scenarios can not work together so you will either have to pick one or try to find the middle ground between them.
You were kind enough to confirm. The truth is, in America you almost entirely get to choose how much success you want to achieve. If you possess any aptitude in a field, you can, through determination, put yourself in its top 20%. The upper strata might be fought over by those of great aptitude and determination, but the top 20% is open to anyone with an initial bit of skill.
Alternatively, if someone is in poverty and they don't care to make a sincere effort to get out, that is their choice as well. Those who wish to make the effort to succeed are not forced to support those who don't wish to make the effort to succeed.
--Joe
piercehawkeye,
It occurs to me that I might have misinterpreted you in all of this. I've had this topic on the brain, and might have been too ready to get it out in words.
I will agree, if it was your original point, that a single parent starting from a low income situation would have to work extraordinarily hard to both improve their situation and provide for their children. It is a possibility that such hardship could befall the innocent, and such a hardship is not accounted for in modern America.
--Joe
Your last post pretty much sums up my belief for that situation. I don't think it is impossible for someone in the lower class to get out, just that it is a lot harder to get out and find a good job than it is for someone who was born into a well to do family.
Personally, what I think think that biggest problem for the lower class is sociological.
Your last post pretty much sums up my belief for that situation. I don't think it is impossible for someone in the lower class to get out, just that it is a lot harder to get out and find a good job than it is for someone who was born into a well to do family.
Personally, what I think think that biggest problem for the lower class is sociological.
I'll agree on all points. You got me on naive. (;
--Joe
There is the underlying stigma that those who are poor must not work hard enough. That if you would just work harder, the money would come. This doesn't take into account many people who serve the public; jobs that require a LOT of skill, a bachelor's degree at minimum, many long hours for relatively little pay. Why do we keep doing it? For me, I've done the corporate thing, the supervisory experience in high tech manufacturing. As tough as it can be, there are satisfactions in this job that can't be measured.
No, maybe me and those like me are not living in poverty, but lacking the cushion of cash that becomes so important when you can't just go buy a new car because yours keeps breaking, hoping to make all the bills. The feeling that why does everything have to be so damn hard? The knowledge that the 10 grand some dude spends on a motorbike (or whatever...just an example) would relieve most of the frustration in your life; it gets old after a period of time.
It's very tough to catch up once you've fallen behind.
As I've said many times...we are losing our middle class and a society without a middle class cannot sustain itself.
Then I think about how lucky I am; how much worse things could be. My electric was shut off for a day and I had to wait for the next day to beg, borrow, and steal the payment. I woke up in the morning and it was under 40 degrees in my place. I thought how horrible it must be to be homeless.
Yet, every day stress of needing more, wanting more, looking for just a little relief from financial worries take its toll on a person.
I'm reminded of
The Rocking Horse Winner by DH Lawrence.
(I hope I haven't offended or challenged anyone. It just seemed like a good thread to post some of the issues I have been dealing with as of late.) Thanks for the ears (eyes) :o
I'll drop the argumentative mode here.
I completely agree with piercehawkeye, at least I think I do, that the problem with the poor, or lower middle class, is sociological. As I said, my wife and I lived very comfortably on $15,000 a year, and that included saving for retirement! We drove a car, lived in an apartment, etc.
I think that many get caught up in this materialistic world. When they are young and poor they spend right up to the limits of their paycheck, and 'somehow' the situation just continues until they die.
How much money you make is your choice, as well as how well you want to live on that money.
I think it's one of life's cruel jokes that if you are seeking prosperity you will never find it. Only once I stopped caring about money did I understand how to save it and make it.
--Joe
Not everyone wants prosperity. Some just want a nice little place, a reliable car, some breathing room. Happiness comes from friendships and family; one is better able to enjoy that when not feeling pressed by the weight of the world.
How much money you make is your choice, as well as how well you want to live on that money.
Yep, if only I worked harder. Same old assumption.
I think you misunderstood me, I should be explicit.
When I say that you choose how much money you want to make, I mean it literally and without value judgment.
You once had a higher paying job. You've chosen a lower paying job. Therefor, how much money you make is your choice. Even if this is not strictly true, you understand what I mean.
I'm not saying you should choose to make more money. I'm not saying that if you worked harder that you would make more money, or that in order to make more money you would have to work harder.
Just this, you choose how much money to make. You choose it through your education, through your career, through your choice of city.
By prosperity, I mean a very moderate prosperity. The kind that you describe. It's a kind that I've had on $15,000 a year. We could have lived like that forever, except that the money had strings.
I don't know anything about your situation. You express dissatisfaction, however, and I'm saying that there is a path to your satisfaction that does not depend on anybody else's actions.
--Joe
I think Shawnee brought up a great point with the motivation. I have never experienced it but I am guessing trying to get out of poverty for an average person is similar to running towards something that seems to keep moving farther away. You do get closer in reality but for all the work you put into it, you do not move as fast as you would expect too, taking a major shot at your motivation.
I think that many get caught up in this materialistic world. When they are young and poor they spend right up to the limits of their paycheck, and 'somehow' the situation just continues until they die.
This happens in every class until you get basically a bottomless account. I have seen high school kids spend all their money on nice cars and then complain about how much student loans are going to suck and how the interest rates are unfair when they go to college.
Happiness comes from friendships and family; one is better able to enjoy that when not feeling pressed by the weight of the world.
I think that is one of the main reasons for happiness but doesn't explain everything. I personally believe that happiness comes from acceptance. You can have all the true friends in the world but that means nothing if you cannot accept yourself.
I think Shawnee brought up a great point with the motivation. I have never experienced it but I am guessing trying to get out of poverty for an average person is similar to running towards something that seems to keep moving farther away. You do get closer in reality but for all the work you put into it, you do not move as fast as you would expect too, taking a major shot at your motivation.
Though I'm an ardent libertarian, I can see a good argument here for socialism.
Namely, I can stand back and say that it is possible for anyone with sufficient motivation to achieve any status they like. That's the abridged version of what I stand back and say, anyway. (;
The reality is that a lot of people will fall prey to this sociological effect which keeps them basically unhappy throughout life. Even though every individual would have the power to lift themselves from this situation, perhaps an ideal government should protect its people from this sociological inevitability.
*shrugs* I'm just lucky I'm not in a place to have to decide.
--Joe
II don't know anything about your situation. You express dissatisfaction, however, and I'm saying that there is a path to your satisfaction that does not depend on anybody else's actions.
--Joe
That is certainly true, and helps me better understand what you meant.
I think that is one of the main reasons for happiness but doesn't explain everything. I personally believe that happiness comes from acceptance. You can have all the true friends in the world but that means nothing if you cannot accept yourself.
This is true as well, and I am sure that much of my unhappiness comes from not accepting myself.
You've all given me good things to think about. :)
No one or nothing can make anyone happy, happiness is a choice & irrelevant to this discussion.
Too many people handicap their climb out of poverty with a couple of kids, then turn around and blame the kids for ruining their lives. It's not the kids fault.
A single parent is really screwed because they get no help with child rearing while trying to go to school for a better job. :(
Don't forget "Middle Class" is a moving target. Plenty of people are having trouble staying in the middle class.
A single parent is really screwed because they get no help with child rearing while trying to go to school for a better job.
This is a bit inaccurate, knowing the kind of financial aid single parents get, while a working young person who is trying to make it on their own, whose parents won't help, who have a car payment and an apartment, who pay their own insurance and generally take care of their lives can make very little money a year and not get a dime of federal or state grants. Also, a young person HAS to report parental income unless one of the following are true: They are 24 or older! They are married. They are orphans, wards of the court, or were until the age of 18. They are veterans or in active military service. OR, they have children for whom they provide at least 50% of the support. That support includes any welfare benefits. The only way out of providing parental information is through an appeal process that must include very well-documented third party proof of ABUSE or ABANDONMENT.The single parent, at this school, gets that one (or two, or three...)more "persons in household" that can make their school not only completely paid for...they get big refund checks from their pell grants every term. Some can quit their jobs when they add in some low interest student loans. Many make good of it, great to see. Many also try to become professional students,and when the feds finally say enough is enough...go to school the rest of your life but not on the govt's dime...they default on those loans with little to no repercussions.
Child care, too, is a huge component of the cost of attendance when figuring student aid.
I'm not saying single parents don't have it rough. I'm just saying the taxpayers without children foot a lot of bills (EIC where a student's total tax LIABILITY is NEGATIVE 6 grand or so on their tax forms is a great example) for these families. As far as I know, young single people didn't ask young single parents to have those children. Some single parents are victims of crappy circumstances...some make it a job and they get paid for it under all kinds of government programs...from housing to schooling.
Two not so hypothetical scenarios: (Please feel free to sub Johnny for Sally and vice-versa, because gender is irrelevant except for who actually bears children...I see single fathers often, too)
1) Johnny's parents are assholes. They treat him like a dog, and refuse to help him with anything. They don't abuse Johnny, they don't beat him...he's just a nuisance in their lives. Johnny moves out as soon as he can, living by flipping burgers at McD's. He works as many hours as possible to get enough money to live. Johnny knows he can do better, and decides to work on a nursing degree. Johnny applies for aid to help with school, and learns he HAS to provide parental information. At this point either a) parents refuse to provide info and JOhnny is fucked or b) Daddy works at GM making 35 bucks an hour and Johnny is fucked. His measly living and dad's paycheck are BOTH considered in the amount Johnny's "family" is expected to contribute to his education. Johnny is eligible for, at maximum...a 2625 student loan for the year, and only get this if his parents supplied info.
2) Sally lives in government subsidized housing, food stamps, govt health care. Sally made 1200 last year. Sally has two kids by the age of 19; her mother watches them most of the time. Sally decides to come to school. Sally reports the 1200 dollars she made last year, and the 2 kids. Sally gets an annual Pell grant of 4050, student loans up to 6625, state aid of 2190, TEAP funding of up to 1200, some other smaller grants. When all is said and done, Sally gets a refund check of a couple grand or more from the pell grant each semester. State grants are applied first and free up the federal pell grant funding which is given to the student...not to mention the 6625 loans she didn't need to touch for college expenses. Sally has tons of time to study: mom watches the kids. Sally flunks out and blames the college and the FA dept and the feds for not helping her out.
There are a million combinations of the above. Like I said, I see the good, I see the bad.
I love kids, I'm just saying there is a flip side to the poor single parent lament that I hear every day. Poor kids didn't ask for their circumstances, that's for sure, in either case.
happiness is a choice & irrelevant to this discussion
Not really...we're talking about the government's role in society's well being. Agree or not, it's a lot harder to choose to be happy when you have no food or clothes as opposed to say...making your next Lexus payment. But, if you feel this discussion is also irrelevant then feel free to cut and paste and start another thread.
No, but what you choose to focus on, regardless of your situation, is up to you.
I know poor people who were sick but very happy and loving, who appreciated the blessings they had in their lives and I know and am related to miserable rich people who are healthy with everything anyone could want, but are miserable because they do not have more... no matter what they have and how many people love them they will be miserable because they choose to be egomaniacle megalomaniacs. Choice & irrelevant to this conversation.
Happiness is what you make of what you have not what you do not have.
I think it is more underlying than that rkzenrage. Some people can see good in everything some people can't. While I agree that you have a lot more control over your happiness than you might think, but to be continuously optimistic is a trait not many have.
and am related to miserable rich people who are healthy with everything anyone could want, but are miserable because they do not have more
I was thinking about this earlier today. Maybe this has something to do with always being delusional and an inability to accept one's self in a psychological disorder like bulimia or anorexia?
Again, not can't/inability, choose not to.
Choice/free-will.
A lot of people in here have issues with the idea of accountability.
First, we don't necessarily have free will.
Second, other factors occur that are out of someone’s control. You cannot control your subconscious, which, I think at least, is accountable for creating many obstacles involving happiness.
Happiness is not external, it is internal (just your perception)and a decision based solely on your priorities, unless you are insane.
Exactly, but controlling yourself is the problem. In our world today we are trained to have unrealistic desires and goals, which can lead to obsessions and insanity. As long as we have these desires we cannot have true happiness (in my opinion at least) but the path to ridding these desires is much tougher than we imagine. I think it is possible for many to enjoy true happiness but I personally believe that many have strayed too far and cannot get rid of these obsessions without a full brainwashing.
Also, society would never allow everyone to get rid of these desires; it is like saying that everyone can get an A on a bell curve. These desires and goals are what fuels our economy and what has built our nation. We need these desires to fuel the economy and keep it in motion or America and every other nation would fall apart instantly.
Just because some have to work harder at something than others does not mean it is unfair or wrong.
Natural selection is true in all levels of life... we all have our handicaps and head-starts, just the way it is.
Level playing field is unnatural and should not be.
You can just choose to get rid of the desires, society presents them, you decide to accept them or not.
One can want a car without deciding to need it to be happy.
Again, accountability, you put it outside yourself, I do not.
Just because some have to work harder at something than others does not mean it is unfair or wrong.
Natural selection is true in all levels of life... we all have our handicaps and head-starts, just the way it is.
Level playing field is unnatural and should not be.
Where did you get this from? I know people are born better than others. I just believe that we should eliminate head starts so the true best can win.
You can just choose to get rid of the desires, society presents them, you decide to accept them or not.
Do you really think it is that easy? Buddhism is the search for this happiness and it is very rare to find a true Buddhist.
Unless you have an amazing ability to let go of desires, the average person can not let them go in an instant. We can pretend we do but it would tear us apart from the inside.
It is not an "amazing ability" it takes work and discipline, like all things worth doing and having.
I never said "better" I implied talent. I would never assign value to that.
This is a bit inaccurate, knowing the kind of financial aid single parents get, ~snip~ The single parent, at this school, gets that one (or two, or three...)more "persons in household" that can make their school not only completely paid for...they get big refund checks from their pell grants every term. Some can quit their jobs when they add in some low interest student loans. Many make good of it, great to see. Many also try to become professional students,and when the feds finally say enough is enough...go to school the rest of your life but not on the govt's dime...they default on those loans with little to no repercussions.
Child care, too, is a huge component of the cost of attendance when figuring student aid. ~snip
Holy shit! Is this common? I mean you said, "at this school", so is this the rule rather than the exception, across the country? State schools? Harvard? Community colleges? This blows my mind. :eek:
Holy shit! Is this common? I mean you said, "at this school", so is this the rule rather than the exception, across the country? State schools? Harvard? Community colleges? This blows my mind. :eek:
Oh, no...not Harvard! :)
I said this school because, as a community college, we have relatively low tuition. There are schools nearby with even lower due to extensive funding from their larger cities. At a private school, all that money would barely make a dent. Private schools are able to offer a lot more campus based aid, though, due to many factors, one being alumni whose more elite degree affords them better job opportunities (but not always.) Then again, you're not going to see many students at Harvard with a HS GPA of 1.6, or a barely passing GED score. It's demographics. With those demographics come system players. Also with those demographics come the student mentioned earlier, say a single parent who successfully completes a nursing program and is able to make a better life for their families. That's when I love this job! :)
I just feel for the people who fall in the middle; I've often said if my ship ever comes in I would like to donate a scholarship for the students who don't make so little they're fully funded, but who don't make so much that paying for school is an easy task.
I never said "better" I implied talent. I would never assign value to that.
Yes, I meant talent not better. Thanks for pointing that out.
snip~ Private schools are able to offer a lot more campus based aid, though, due to many factors, one being alumni whose more elite degree affords them better job opportunities (but not always.) ~ snip
Got ya, I know exactly what you mean.
A couple years ago, up in MA, a friend of mind had a student who was exceptional. Father among the missing, crack whore mother, living with Grandma, working in a fast food joint after school to survive.:(
But, like I said, exceptional, so my friend worked with her and for her. The result was she was accepted to Smith Collage....absolutely free, not a dime for anything. Graduating from the seven sisters she'd be set for life. All she had to do is write a paper. It didn't have to be good, in truth probably wouldn't even be read, but part of the procedure. Oh, and it had to be typed.
All through school the girl had hand written every assignment, except when she could squeeze on to one of the school PCs, to transcribe and print her work.
So my friend solicited me when I was at her house thanksgiving weekend. At Christmas she took the girl a PC and printer, to write the paper and take to Smith to use in the fall. Smith like all those elite schools have tremendous support systems for minority and poor students. From the school and girls that came there under the same circumstances as freshmen...freshwomen?
I got a call in the spring that the girl had quit High School a month short and moved from grandma's to crack whore Mom's. I cried.
I completely agree with piercehawkeye, at least I think I do, that the problem with the poor, or lower middle class, is sociological. As I said, my wife and I lived very comfortably on $15,000 a year, and that included saving for retirement! We drove a car, lived in an apartment, etc.
I didn't respond earlier as I felt I didn't have much to add to the discussion.
But as you mentioned this twice it stuck in my head, so I did some calculations and came back to it.
I don't doubt that you really did live comfortably on $15k because it's not worth lying about. However I'm intrigued as to the circumstances.
Here are my calculations, based on the real life amounts I pay (converted to $ at today's exchange rate to make it easier to read in the US)
All figures per year
Rent - $6,972 (I have the cheapest rent of anyone I know, more usual would be $11,500 plus)
Council Tax - $2,205
Electricity - $709
Gas (household, not car) - $189
Water - $402
Car Tax - $226
MOT $99 (mandatory car test - required annually)
Car Insurance - $450
TV Licence - $259
Phone - $118
Total - $11,629
Now this list covers only mandatory costs.
Not included but recommended:
Breakdown Cover, home contents insurance
(in the interst of frugality the phone is a basic pay-as-you-go mobile, in order to make emergency calls and be contactable in return - quarterly line rental for landline would be much higher)
The amount left per month ($280) has to cover the following for two people:
Car repairs, clothes, family occasions (birthdays, Christmas etc), food and drink, gas (petrol), haircuts, household cleaning products, perishable items like pantyhose, toiletries, prescription charges, suncream, toilet paper..... and apparently saving for retirement.
I could not live "comfortably" this close to the edge. I can only assume some of this is cheaper in the US.
Comfort is opinion too. I am happy with only a few things, some people would be unhappy with what I have and some people would think I have too much to be happy.
In the US, it depends entirely on where you live. $8400 gets you an excellent flat, in most locations.
No "council tax" but there are usually a mix of local and state taxes that add up to about half that.
Electricity: also depends where you live: here, the lowest bill would probably be $1200, but others will see $600.
Water: always included in rent
Car tax: none
Car insurance: usu. about double.
TV Licence: none
Phone: 24.99/month Vonage (or something) = $600, but it's "unlimited" time and long distance. This assumes high-speed Internet, which I cannot live without but others may find unnecessary.
Let me break it down to the best of my memory. (; I don't take it as a challenge to my integrity, and I certainly wasn't proposing that it would be normal to live comfortably on $15,000, we were fairly frugal. We also lived in a...well you'd probably consider it a small town.
Rent: $6,600. $550/month, 1 bedroom apartment.
Car: I'll be liberal here. The car was long since paid off, but I'll figure average cost per year at ($5,500(buying price)-$2,800(selling price) + $1,000(parts and paid service))/4(years of ownership) + $500(insurance per year) so: $1425. I took care of most problems myself.
Gas: Maybe $480. I lived right next to my college and we frequently biked during the summer.
Retirement: $1,200. Meager Roth IRA savings.
Electricity: $360
Internet: $480
Phone: $960. We were still tied to our damn Cingular contract. Now we just have Skype, no cells for the time being but the situation has changed besides that.
All other utilities were taken care of with the apartment.
That leaves about $3500 for other things. We were vegetarian--were as in the wife is now vegan--and made almost all of our own food. I'll guess $1,200 a year, we were pretty frugal. We each had $480 per year personal spending money, and $480 per year mutual spending money. Most of the time though the majority went unspent and back into the pool.
As for the circumstances, that was money from the Montgomery GI Bill. I lived next to a community college and wasn't really "pursuing a degree", except in the mind of the VA office of course. (; I was dinking around with restoring cars...but that's another story.
This was in Oregon too, so no sales tax. $550 a month got us the nicest 1 bedroom in town. (;
We were happy. I had picked up a nice projector on the cheap a few years earlier and we downloaded documentaries from UK Nova. Lots of vegetable lasagna, pasta, grilled cheese sandwiches, fried zucchini, yummy.
Undertoad: Maybe electricity is just cheaper in Oregon, but we had a well insulated apartment with compact flourescent bulbs at got away with less than $30 per month.
The one thing we were lacking in was health insurance. I was notionally insured by the VA. Supposing that we didn't intend to live forever on $15k, we were looking at a policy for about $100 a month that at least would have gotten us treatment for any problem, if a bit of debt for down the road as well. Medical debt, at least in the US, is fairly innocuous as far as debts go.
Thanks for giving me a chance to elaborate. (;
--Joe
Thank you for taking my request in the spirit intended.
I guess it is cheaper to live in the US than the UK. And no doubt this is because we have higher taxes. Mine pay for a safety net that I'm unlikely to fall far enough to use - falling as Shawnee says, in the middle. I just dangle from a single straining hand from time to time.
Par example:
When I last had a car, a kind soul smashed my rear passenger window outside Leyton Tube station. During the day and with nothing in the car worth stealing. In fact the car itself opened with any key (or even a screwdriver) thanks to previous vandalism, so it was sheer badness. I drove the car home and sat on my bed and cried. It was approx 10 days til payday and I had zero money. I had a Travelcard to get to work, food in the fridge and freezer, warmth, light, all the basics.
BUT I couldn't leave the car parked on the street in London missing a window - apart from the fact it was winter it would have shouted, "Abandoned Car!" to every single pikey within hailing distance. Two streets away there was an abandoned factory and burned out cars were a regular decorative feature.
I got the money by a happy coincidence, and got the window fixed that night. But my point is, I can deal without material things. I just can't deal with a minor problem becoming a major one all for the want of some ready cash.
I work hard, if not well. I am not afraid of hard work and have had 3 jobs before, in order to make ends meet, and worked a 60 hour week at 2 jobs in order to pay off debts. I would just like to feel more secure. I'm one unfortunate incident away from having to run home to my parents and throw myself on their mercy. At 34.
Still - am moving to London to share with a friend soon. He is very respectable and if not rich then at least organised. Let's hope I rub off on him rather than vice versa.
I've been to London, and I can understand how things would be more difficult there. I think there's a much higher standard of living in England in general than in the United States. Much more expensive, and I'd guess more pressure to keep up too.
The thing that struck me most in London were the cars. Not a dent, scratch, or peeling clear coat to be seen in central London, that I saw at least, and not much anyway throughout England. Didn't get up to Wales or beyond to see what it's like up there.
And of course, prices of rent just blew me away.
Thanks for letting me babble. I hope things turn out well for you.
--Joe
Edit: Sorry to hear about your car. I think the only way I could deal with that well would involve the help of family. Glad you got it sorted.
The last couple posts in this thread reminded me that I'm either wicked fucking lucky or completely blessed...
Ha! I just noticed your tag line. Richard Bartle is my ex's absolute hero. Bartle now lectures at Essex uni, my ex seriously considered moving south to take his degree down there.
I think there's a much higher standard of living in England in general than in the United States.
Not sure about that - I used to work for a British company and traveled there a few times - Also worked with many Brits now living in the US. Everything in the US seems to be bigger, louder, and more "over the top". Stereotypical Americans - we want bigger houses and cars - better teeth and more plastic surgery. We have big massive lawns that require tractors to maintain. Our 52" flat screen TVs barely take up any room in our 5000+sq ft homes. Check out the growth trends here:
http://www.nahb.org/news_details.aspx?newsID=2847
Size isn't the only dictate of living standard. I think the US naturally offers more variety of food, cars, job opportunities etc. Of course I don't know what the actual numbers are for standard of living -so this could just be a bunch of crap - but in my experience, the general public here fares better than the UK - (nothing against the Brits - I loved the time I spent with my British colleagues)
I think I'll embrace the thread drift we've created here. (;
I guess England stretches a bit further north than I thought, and that I've only been to southern England, so I may or may not have gotten an accurate picture.
I guess it's hard to compare England to America. It seemed that there's a much different dynamic between the classes there than here.
In general I noticed mainly how the roads were dominated by new and nice cars and also how expensive everything was. I got the impression that there was an immense amount of money flowing through England in general and London specifically, and that everybody was getting their slice, even if it was terribly small.
Perhaps I shouldn't talk in ephemeral terms like "standard of living", I suppose it doesn't mean much.
As for the other nations of the UK, I didn't get to see them. It's a pity I didn't get to see Wales, I've been rather curious about that side of my family since I discovered that I'm a dead ringer for Christian Bale. (; Well, an exceedingly thin Christian Bale anyway.
Cheers,
Joe
Edit: Gah, and now I find that Bale was born to English parents...being American is so confusing.