New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?
http://www.tbo.com/news/nationworld/MGBA1FNEE6F.html
Wow...just wow. I always thought political leanings were due to brain functioning ability and non-ability. I have a friend that has become anything fundamentalist. I knew it had to be biological because she isn't stupid. I think it was because of sustaining some brain damage due to a car accident. Is this right? Hmmmmmm......
Now we can diagnose them and give them meds.? For their political "condition"? That would be awesome. We could start diagnoseing and curing people of their political ridiculousness? Yeah!!!! Or we could reduce it to a brain disorder or damage?
Ok who wants to kick my ass
first?
Gosh. In this deeply fractured society, it is now an option to believe that the other side is not just incorrect, not just wrong, not even just stupid, but actually broken.
Believe what you want. And then get ready for the twister.
We can't survive like this. We can't function like this. We can't live our lives believing that everybody else is a broken, sick fuck. It's not gonna work. We can't educate our children, we can't defend ourselves from enemies, we can't help the unfortunate.
Yesterday we had a study showing that almost all adult men avoid lost, crying children in malls. Why: they expect they will be charged with being a pedophile.
We simply can't go on like this. It won't end well.
The people who believe differently than you are perfectly normal people. Someday, you may need to ask them for help. What will be the result? Will they help you? Someday, they may ask you for help. Will you help them?
How are we going to come together? Especially if there comes a time when we really need to?
http://www.tbo.com/news/nationworld/MGBA1FNEE6F.html
Now we can diagnose them and give them meds.? For their political "condition"? That would be awesome. We could start diagnoseing and curing people of their political ridiculousness? Yeah!!!! Or we could reduce it to a brain disorder or damage?
Is this really what you think and want? Everyone who doesn't think like you should be diagnosed, drugged, and/or considered brain damaged?
I asked Spexxvet to stop with the laundry lists of what those 'others' think and want, and try discussion. If we don't continue to acknowledge our common humanity, our common points of reference, and agree to discuss issues with some courtesy and civility, what will happen to us?
Thank you, UT, for putting it better than I could.
Yeah- just a joke....
This study is just a sign of the times......
What I really think- people will do anything to discredit others this close to election time. Who funded it?
That's what I really think.......
;)
Oh and some of my best friends have very different political opinions from me....that never stopped us from trusting each other's judgement, giving or receiving help, or anything else......
Poking fun....pokes back. Ow!!!
im in ur brainz ..................
................ makin u kunservativez
I now quit stark raving sarcasm....it's too dry and it does not work on the internet. 9 times out of 10.
Guess it's just too close to the terrible truth for some.
I asked Spexxvet to stop with the laundry lists of what those 'others' think and want, and try discussion.
Well maybe you should quit doing dirty laundry with abstractions and ideas- try using Tide.
:)
Michael "The Skeptic" Shermer wrote a piece in Scientific American, on Confirmation Bias, specifically: how does it work? They used fMRI to study the brain activity of two groups, representing (based on their self-description) staunch left and right wingers.
They asked each group to evaluate both Bush and Kerry being caught in an obvious contradiction from a previoulsy stated position. Predictably, both groups bent over backwards to excuse their own guy, while crucifying the other.
The fMRI revealed that they did not use the part of their brain that evaluates things with logic and reason. They used the parts of their brain that process emotions, conflict resolution, and moral judgment. There was also a
strong activation of their pleasure/reward centers.
Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones.
Edit:
The people who believe differently than you are perfectly normal people...
...How are we going to come together? Especially if there comes a time when we really need to?
This "use versus them" mentality has been nagging at me lately. I'm afraid it may be hard-wired into our brains.
At the risk of being slammed as a one-issue fanatic, I really think this is something we all need to talk about, and think about, seriously.
What better place than the internet, for different people and opinions to come together? When something is on my mind, it surfaces in the form of song lyrics:
In different circles we keep holding our ground. Indifferent circles, we keep spinning round and round and round.
Behind the finer feelings, the civilized veneer, the heart of a lonely hunter guards a a dangerous frontier.
I knew it, I knew it all along.... all you fuckers are defective. All of ya, every one... everyone 'cept me.
Gosh. In this deeply fractured society, it is now an option to believe that the other side is not just incorrect, not just wrong, not even just stupid, but actually broken.
That's always been an
option.
I wonder if there's a similar sort of test that liberals would do worse on.
The article did at least give a hint of something like that, HM:
Lead author David Amodio, an assistant professor of psychology at NYU, cautioned that the study looked at a narrow range of human behavior, and it would be a mistake to conclude that one political orientation was better. The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation, he said.
...cautioned that the study looked at a narrow range of human behavior...
Yes, but that "whether you hit M or W" range of behavior
says so much about who we are... [COLOR="Silver"][/smarm][/COLOR]
...We can't survive like this. We can't function like this. We can't live our lives believing that everybody else is a broken, sick fuck. It's not gonna work. We can't educate our children, we can't defend ourselves from enemies, we can't help the unfortunate.
...
We simply can't go on like this. It won't end well.
The people who believe differently than you are perfectly normal people. Someday, you may need to ask them for help. What will be the result? Will they help you? Someday, they may ask you for help. Will you help them?
How are we going to come together? Especially if there comes a time when we really need to?
...The fMRI revealed that they did not use the part of their brain that evaluates things with logic and reason. They used the parts of their brain that process emotions, conflict resolution, and moral judgment. There was also a strong activation of their pleasure/reward centers.
Edit:
This "use versus them" mentality has been nagging at me lately. I'm afraid it may be hard-wired into our brains.
At the risk of being slammed as a one-issue fanatic, I really think this is something we all need to talk about, and think about, seriously. What better place than the internet, for different people and opinions to come together? When something is on my mind, it surfaces in the form of song lyrics:
I will also risk the one-issue fanatic label and posit that these attitudes are an extension of prehistoric society and capitalism. The perspective is "I must win. Decisively. All others must lose." What better way to improve your chances of survival, and the continuation of your genes? When you enter any interaction with that as your goal, what else, ultimately will happen? You can come up with ALL KINDS of reasons that you should win. Sometimes the reasons aren't reasons at all - like their left half is black and their right half white, instead of the opposite,
right way. I would even put forth that the divorce rate is so high because husband and wife each feel that they *must* win.
UT: help each other? Like "from each according to his ability to each according to his need"? The predominent American attitude seems to be to take advantage of those who are need, to try figure out a way to profit from others' misery. Rebuilding New Orleans and Iraq will make millionaires out of some people. Again, it's a case of you lost, now I win.
Until people understand that they can't, shouldn't, and don't have to win, at the expense of everything else, this is the way we'll be living.
:rant:
Bah- when we were doing evacuations, rescue, and donation banks for Katrina victims I saw die-hard fundamentalist right-wingers bend over backwards for the less fortunate. Silent donations of private evacuation planes, buses, whole houses, and cars. We aren't so different. Except they wanted to mask their identities (sometimes), which I found kind of odd.
I was charmed. Renewed my faith in everyone...despite what I previously thought about a segment of the population......I was wowed by what people did despite their political backgrounds. Cicero- of so little faith and cynicism- was put to rights by a small measurement called proof. Yeah-they did something different than they are used to doing, and very well I might add. Not only did they adapt quickly -they kicked some ass.....I was shocked...but happily so.
"You want to donate what?!?" "You are going to to do what?!?"
:)
Well I'll be damned if I didn't see some uptight rich republican white folk go rescue poor black families out of Louisiana theirselves in little Cessna's. Their only requested profile? Make sure the family is small enough that they can fit in the damned thing. Was that illegal at the time? Yes..... Did I let them know that? Yes. Did they care? No. That wasn't the only thing they did sticking their necks out either. They kicked butts with everyone else.
Apparently they too cannot watch Americans die in the streets...no matter what background......
Look it's another cicero anecdote. Who is suprised? Don't ask me what people are going to do when they need to help each other- I've seen it happen. And quicker than CrAZy. Maybe you need to ask yourself because my illusions have been abolished from my reality about that. By the burden of proof.
was wowed by what people did despite their political backgrounds.
It's easy to see peoples' humanity when they're in front of you and desperate. The problem comes in when so many people are unable to see, or dismissive of, the humanity of those who are at a distance.
It's easy to see peoples' humanity when they're in front of you and desperate. The problem comes in when so many people are unable to see, or dismissive of, the humanity of those who are at a distance.
Ummm....what makes you think we
weren't at a distance? That's what I was just talking about. I wasn't clear.
Ahh. I misunderstood.
I often find that in times of disaster, people set aside their political selves in order to help their fellow humans. What I find difficult to understandn is how that doesn't translate to a more inclusive compassion. They will get involved when a disaster affects many people; but if a family falls into its own personal disaster, that's their own business to deal with. Politically there is a lack of compassion for human frailty and failure, and a lack of compassion for the effects that poverty may have on the individuals concerned.
What I find difficult to understandn is how that doesn't translate to a more inclusive compassion. They will get involved when a disaster affects many people; but if a family falls into its own personal disaster, that's their own business to deal with. Politically there is a lack of compassion for human frailty and failure, and a lack of compassion for the effects that poverty may have on the individuals concerned.
I don't recognize the people you are describing. Conservatives generally prefer to care for others personally. Funding bureacracies is not the same thing as caring.
I don't recognize the people you are describing. Conservatives generally prefer to care for others personally. Funding bureacracies is not the same thing as caring.
Of course there are cases of abuse that make us all suspect of charitable organizations, but can't an organization do more than individuls? I've also found that people tend to care for people like themselves - you support a fellow church member or neighbor, for example. Is it likely that that wealthy consrvatives living in the suburbs will
personally help a poor single mother and her family living in the city?
Funding bureacracies is not the same thing as caring.
I'm not talking so much about the funding as I am talking about the attitude and rhetoric. The rhetoric many right-wing politicians adopt when talking about social problems is often scathing and lacking in human empathy for the people who are experiencing those problems. Certainly in this country the right used to orate against such groups as single mothers and the unemployed with a venom that made many of us flinch. Policy followed the rhetoric.
Certainly in this country the right used to orate against such groups as single mothers and the unemployed with a venom that made many of us flinch.
The unemployed, yes. "Welfare mothers," yes. But not single mothers. In America single mothers are put on a huge ass altar of martyrdom, by both parties. Some conservatives will quietly fund marriage initiatives, but Dan Quayle was the last person to make the mistake of specifically saying out loud that single motherhood was not as good as being married.
Ahh. I misunderstood.
I often find that in times of disaster, people set aside their political selves in order to help their fellow humans. What I find difficult to understandn is how that doesn't translate to a more inclusive compassion. They will get involved when a disaster affects many people; but if a family falls into its own personal disaster, that's their own business to deal with. Politically there is a lack of compassion for human frailty and failure, and a lack of compassion for the effects that poverty may have on the individuals concerned.
Dana I did expect them to turn their backs entirely- that's how cynical I was. Don't take my little bit of sunshine away!
I know what you are saying....
We'll pray for you, but keep your grubby hands out of our pocket-books.
You are lucky I just erased two paragraphs of details........
There's plenty of frustrations around here about the incompetence of government in keeping regulations and programs on task, relevant, and under control. Take the thread in Home Base about housing and farm regulations as an example. It's the same bunch of people sticking out their hands and saying "we know how to distribute your money better than you do".
It's the same bunch of people sticking out their hands and saying "we know how to distribute your money better than you do".
Like UT, and this messageboard. He arrogantly distributes our posts, while we would be better served plopping random non sequiturs on the internet, and hoping they connected into threads. Down with the man!
Come again?:confused::eyebrow:
I meant that it's the same government officials sticking out their hands (use of my taxes), not members of the cellar. Was that it?
I would think that Flint is suggesting that there are times that central organization is justified and useful.
I find it disappointing that some folks have a hard time distinguishing between some jackass politician's (who happens to be a republican) rhetoric, and what real live individuals who happen to be political conservatives do or think.
So some senator is a firebrand against mom's on welfare. Does that mean that I as a conservative, must drive around looking for poor mothers to spit on? Is it possible that as a person (who happens to lean conservative in fiscal and political discussions) might just be... A PERSON first. I might just go out of my way to help those around me? Or that when I hear about someone in need I'm happy to help in the way I'm best suited?
I'm absolutely against a lot of government programs because I feel they are largely ineffective, generally inefficient, and quite often corrupt from the ground up. I am absolutely in support of helping out those around me when I see a need. I really wish douchebag politicians would quit taking so much of my money so I could help more of the people I see.
It looks kind of like this. If I see an individual who has issues with her car that will cost her $1000 that she just plain doesn't have, I can give her $1000 myself or get a couple of friends to pitch in and help, or I can call a contact and ask him to volunteer his labor to fix the car. But if a politician sees this individual and they think "this poor person needs a thousand dollars, how to do it?" next thing you know he has raised my taxes so I'm out $1000, he takes that $1000 puts it through the government sieve, creates a new program, hires a new bunch of folks to fill the bureaucracy, advertises the program, interviews the needy individuals to decide who is more in need and out of my $1000 this poor individual gets $8 for bus fare. But if they come back next month, they can have $8 more, and the month after that is an election month so they can have $10 so they'll have enough to make it to the polls, cuz "who loves ya baby".
There isn't much that the goverment can do better than we can as individuals.
But see, if they didn't create new programs, then we might not see how important they are, and if we didn't see how important they are we might start thinking we could live without them in Washington, and if we did that... what would happen to them?
Just remember, a government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. or something like that.
It looks kind of like this. If I see an individual who has issues with her car that will cost her $1000 that she just plain doesn't have, I can give her $1000 myself or get a couple of friends to pitch in and help, or I can call a contact and ask him to volunteer his labor to fix the car.
What if you don't see her?
I don't believe I'm all that special, so I don't believe I'm the only person who tries to take care of the people around me. All that I'm aware of falls under what I consider my responsibility. So if I do that, and you take care of those you can help around you, and bruce helps those around him, and UT... see where I'm going here?
I'm not saying we should trash the safety net programs, I'm just saying that we don't need a government program to be big brother for every damn thing.
The people closest to the problem are the best to help because they know precisely what sort of help is needed and what sort is productive.
So if I do that, and you take care of those you can help around you, and bruce helps those around him, and UT... see where I'm going here?
Unfortunately not everybody is willing to help the person next to them. Not every person is surrounded by people who will help them. The world is full of people who will exploit and people who will be exploited. It's full of people who are resolutely blind to the suffering of people living mere metres from them and it's full of people who suffer poverty and fear on the doorsteps of people who do not see them.
We used to have a society in Britain, where help was something individuals offered and individuals sought. Not enough individuals offered and far too many had to seek. The protections our society has were hard fought for by people who had been cut out of the big cake and left eating scraps.
Poverty, unemployment, health inequalities, social exclusion. These things are too big to be left to the vagaries of individuals' good will. The reason so many people in my country fought to achieve those safety nets is that the system of gentle benevolence was really a tacit acceptance of inequality and brutal exploitation.
I don't believe I'm all that special, so I don't believe I'm the only person who tries to take care of the people around me. All that I'm aware of falls under what I consider my responsibility. So if I do that, and you take care of those you can help around you, and bruce helps those around him, and UT... see where I'm going here?
I'm not saying we should trash the safety net programs, I'm just saying that we don't need a government program to be big brother for every damn thing.
Emphasis mine. How many poor black families are you around, and do you help them? I'm just saying that we tend to live with people who are like ourselves, and we help people who our like ourselves. I'm guilty of the same thing. A couple of years ago, our community made a huge effort and investment (all donations) to build a new athletic field for ourselves. This is a municipality that already had 5 or 6 fields for the lily-white middle class suburban kids to use . The folks involved would have died rather than give another "handout to the N***ers in Chester" (the nearest urban / minority area).
Maybe because they see the facilities in Chester, Camden and Philly, going to hell in a handbasket. Neglected, abandoned to junkies and thugs, broken glass and trash. If the people the facilities are for, won't take care of them, how can you convince people to provide more facilities?
I think welfare states are just a natural progression in sociological advancement. Once a decent standard of living is established in the middle class, a push towards a welfare state seems almost inevitable except by major control by state.
How many poor black families are you around, and do you help them?
So if the person I help this week is not black, that makes them somehow not important on the "needs help" chart? Give me a break. First of all, not all people who need help are black. second, not all black people live in one neighborhood that no on else goes too. third, are all black people poor? If not, then possibly those who do need help will also be receiving help from those in there network, area of influence, whatever you want to call it.
In my area, I'm surrounded by a lot of mexicans. Yep, I help the ones I can. Sometimes I even leave some of the steak around the bone before I throw it at them from the window of my speeding SUV on my way back to my lilly white neighborhood. :right:
The point is help those you see around you and do what you can.
The protections our society has were hard fought for by people who had been cut out of the big cake and left eating scraps.
This particular rational is complete bullshit. I really mean that, there is no 'cake' or 'pie' or whatever other pastry the metaphor people have on the brain. We do not line up for our ration of wealth, we are not just given anything. If I have more then you 99.9% of the time I did more then you and planned better then you, the iota's worth left had dumb luck. :mad2:
This particular rational is complete bullshit. I really mean that, there is no 'cake' or 'pie' or whatever other pastry the metaphor people have on the brain. We do not line up for our ration of wealth, we are not just given anything. If I have more then you 99.9% of the time I did more then you and planned better then you, the iota's worth left had dumb luck.
9th, the battles I was referring to took place in the 19th and early 20th century, when Britain followed a laissez faire approach to capitalism. I am referring to a time when a very small class of industrialists controlled had a strangelhold on economic power and the mass of the working classes lived in slums, worked in the 'dark satanic mills' of the cities and were forced to let their children work in dangerous jobs in the mines and mills. The working class fought hard for protection, for a fair wage, for decent working conditions. They had to fight for these things because they were being treated by their employers as if they were little more than dumb beasts.
The fact that a small class of people had sole access to finance, to the vote, to a decent education, to a childhood without working in dangerous conditions, does not mean that they did more or planned better. The system at the time did not allow for social mobility.
Every single protection that the working classes ever gained was fought for and fought for hard. Laws governing safety at work? Fought for against the wishes of the employer-class. A fair day's pay for a fair day's work? Fought for against the wishes of the employer-class. Legislation against children working? Fought for against the wishes of the employer-class. Laws governing minimum safety and hygiene standards in housing? Fought for against the wishes of the employer and landlord-class. The right to unionise? Fought for against the wishes of the employer-class and the political elite. Old age pension? Fought for, and fought for fucking hard by a class of people who were used to working until they dropped.
I find it interesting that you relate most strongly to that employer class. You relate to the minority who controlled the entire economy rather than the majority who worked in it. Me? I'm under no such illusion. I am a workingclass woman from Salford, if I'd have been born 150 years earlier, I would have lived in a slum, most likely with 6 people to a bedroom. I would have been working by the time I was 7 in a dangerous job with a very high risk of injury and mutilation. At best I may have been 'in service' from the age of 10, working for a wealthy family. Me and my entire family would have worked 12 hours a day for just enough to eat and with no hope of ever changing and not one of us would have had the right to vote. Meanwhile those who owned the mills and factories would have experienced vast wealth and controlled the political system.
I am able to live the life I live now, with the opportunities I have now and the protections that prevent my exploitation because my forefathers (and mothers) fought for them. I would also posit that you are able to live the life you live and have the protections you have, because your forefathers fought for them.
Maybe because they see the facilities in Chester, Camden and Philly, going to hell in a handbasket. Neglected, abandoned to junkies and thugs, broken glass and trash. If the people the facilities are for, won't take care of them, how can you convince people to provide more facilities?
Did I say give them "facilities"?
Read Luke 15, 11-32
So if the person I help this week is not black, that makes them somehow not important on the "needs help" chart? Give me a break. First of all, not all people who need help are black. second, not all black people live in one neighborhood that no on else goes too. third, are all black people poor? If not, then possibly those who do need help will also be receiving help from those in there network, area of influence, whatever you want to call it.
I don't think I said any of what you've read into my post. You said that you try
to take care of the people [COLOR="Red"]around me[/COLOR]
and my point is that if you are white and middle class, and live in the suburbs, you are not "around" the [SIZE="4"][COLOR="Red"]TYPICAL[/COLOR][/SIZE] person who needs help. If you are middle class and live in suburbs, you
probably don't need help. If you need help, you
probably are not middle class and
probably don't live in the suburbs. I don't think I insinuated anything more.
In my area, I'm surrounded by a lot of mexicans. Yep, I help the ones I can. Sometimes I even leave some of the steak around the bone before I throw it at them from the window of my speeding SUV on my way back to my lilly white neighborhood. :right:
Even after they pick your cotton all day? Wow, what a generous fellow you are.:rolleyes:
The point is help those you see around you and do what you can.
"Around you" being the key. After Katrina, I donated to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund. I am not "around" New Orleans. I could not go to New Orleans to help, or to take a car load of supplies. I did not know anyone in New Orleans to send a check to. How would I help them, using your philosophy?
This particular rational is complete bullshit. I really mean that, there is no 'cake' or 'pie' or whatever other pastry the metaphor people have on the brain. We do not line up for our ration of wealth, we are not just given anything. If I have more then you 99.9% of the time I did more then you and planned better then you, the iota's worth left had dumb luck. :mad2:
Wealthy parent "give" their children a huge slice of "pie", "cake", and filet mignon. Having good healthcare, nutrition, two parents, modern conveniences, a safe neighborhood to live in, a quality education, tutoring when needed, all give a child a great advantage over those kids who live in poverty. Even nice clothing and teeth straightened by braces give a candidate a better chance of getting a high-paying job.
..
and my point is that if you are white and middle class, and live in the suburbs, you are not "around" the [SIZE="4"][COLOR="Red"]TYPICAL[/COLOR][/SIZE] person who needs help. If you are middle class and live in suburbs, you probably don't need help. If you need help, you probably are not middle class and probably don't live in the suburbs. I don't think I insinuated anything more.
...
Oh, and if you live around those who need help, you
probably don't have means to help them.
Gosh. In this deeply fractured society, it is now an option to believe that the other side is not just incorrect, not just wrong, not even just stupid, but actually broken.
Believe what you want. And then get ready for the twister.
We can't survive like this. We can't function like this. We can't live our lives believing that everybody else is a broken, sick fuck. It's not gonna work. We can't educate our children, we can't defend ourselves from enemies, we can't help the unfortunate.
Yesterday we had a study showing that almost all adult men avoid lost, crying children in malls. Why: they expect they will be charged with being a pedophile.
We simply can't go on like this. It won't end well.
The people who believe differently than you are perfectly normal people. Someday, you may need to ask them for help. What will be the result? Will they help you? Someday, they may ask you for help. Will you help them?
How are we going to come together? Especially if there comes a time when we really need to?
Thoughts like these tend to fly right under our level of awarness to even put them into words. I am impressed. Painful truths are mostly stuffed and we go on our way apathetic because we don't know how to change it. Especially as older people die out the younger people won't know there was even a difference?
Perhaps those old movies and shows that seem lame to young folk now will become social a social commentary one day. The'll be studied in college just to get a glimpse of social norms that are not in practice any longer?
good thoughts UT.
The problem is not in recognition that people need help, the problem is in what differing groups propose as the solution. Those with hard earned wealth are against redistribution of their wealth to fix social problems which are often a bottomless pit of revolving door handouts. Those who are Uber wealthly often give thousands to this charity or that charity and often can make a difference in peoples lives, some do, some don't. Those who are in the middle who don't have much to give want those who have lots to give it up to cause "XYZ" because they (in the middle) think people with money should take care of those without. And so the rub continues.
Unfortunately not everybody is willing to help the person next to them. Not every person is surrounded by people who will help them. The world is full of people who will exploit and people who will be exploited. It's full of people who are resolutely blind to the suffering of people living mere metres from them and it's full of people who suffer poverty and fear on the doorsteps of people who do not see them.
We used to have a society in Britain, where help was something individuals offered and individuals sought. Not enough individuals offered and far too many had to seek. The protections our society has were hard fought for by people who had been cut out of the big cake and left eating scraps.
Poverty, unemployment, health inequalities, social exclusion. These things are too big to be left to the vagaries of individuals' good will. The reason so many people in my country fought to achieve those safety nets is that the system of gentle benevolence was really a tacit acceptance of inequality and brutal exploitation.
Another Anecdote c/o Cicero:
Monday I went for my usual cup of coffee and saw from a distance that there was an irregular person sitting in my usual area. Everyone else that usually hangs out in that area went somewhere else to sit, because that person- you could tell from a distance- was indigent, looked like he was having a hard time, and might cast a negative spell on their morning. I was the only person to sit in my usual spot near this person, and the look in his eyes said he was incredibly sad and defeated.Like he was dying. Not only did no one go out of their way for someone so down-trodden. They refused to be anywhere near him as some sort of social darwinism,denial, or discrimination. I not knowing what do again in the face of someone so helpless, gave him some money hoping that at least an act of kindness would cast some light.He had shoes on like had just gotten out of a hospital. It's true- when people are really suffering in everyone's face- unless they are of a proper status- they are not only not taken care of- they are
avoided. Like being 10 feet from it might hurt them......Wouldn't even get close enough to shake a stick at.
The amount of evasion that I run into is really worse than I'd usually admit.
but someone did help him. You.
By pure happenstance one person who did not view this man as some sort of disturbing social leper, came into his proximity. Had Cicer not done so, someone else might have helped...or not. Again, to me these things are too big, too societal in nature to be left to the vagaries of human kindness. That one guy isn't just one guy. He is one visible example of a person in trouble or in need. There are many, almost countless others in most wealthy cities of the industrial West.
The Buddhist parable about gently licking maggots from the wounded dog comes to mind. The "wounded dog" is transformed into the deity that the person desired, for many years, to see. The act of compassion is the greater part of any religion, or system of beliefs. It is the highest form.
The act of compassion is the greater part of any religion, or system of beliefs. It is the highest form.
I wholly agree.
By pure happenstance one person who did not view this man as some sort of disturbing social leper, came into his proximity. Had Cicer not done so, someone else might have helped...or not. Again, to me these things are too big, too societal in nature to be left to the vagaries of human kindness. That one guy isn't just one guy. He is one visible example of a person in trouble or in need. There are many, almost countless others in most wealthy cities of the industrial West.
And for that one act of kindness should be surely praised and emulated. But the problem is "Then what?". Did they take the poor homeless man home with them? Did they empty their bank account and make is life truely better? Did they buy them dinner? What about dinner the next day? Did they take them to the doctor to see if they needed medication? Did they buy them the needed medication? Are they going to supply the needed medication for ever since the poor guy obviouly can't work? Did they take them home or get them some place where they could shower? And what about all the other homeless friends he has? What about them? Where does it end?
You can't have rescue fantasies about all the bad in the world. Just do little bits here and there and try to make a difference. Are you willing to sacrifice the well being of you and your family to help every single person in the world that needs help?
My answer to that Merc is that it's a damn sight less oppressive if everyone contributes a manageable portion of their wealth/income in order that no one person has to carry such a burden.
Monday morning man probably needed help 10 or 20 years ago. Whether he needed help that day, nobody knows, because nobody asked him. It is rude for us to assume that he needed help when he didn't ask for it and maybe he only wanted to have a seat for a while. It's even rude to assume he wanted someone to sit next to him.
Now let's try this one!
Compassion is the highest form. Of the following situations, which contains the most compassion?
- I sense you are in need and I help you with what it is you need. It may be money, or it may be education, or a room for a month, or a flight outta town, or simply advice, or merely a warm coat, or merely a friendly smile acknowledging your presence and sitting down in your proximity.
OR
- Anonymous government employees watch over the removal of a fifth of my paycheck. They take what they need, then send you a check for the amount you qualify for. We never meet, but I assume that because a huge chunk of my earnings was taken from me for your assistance, you are surely being helped.
Given that most people feel somehow smaller for having needed help (not wanting to be a 'charity case' not wanting to use 'the begging bowl') I would actually consider the second more compassionate. It much easier for the person receiving help if they are merely accessing a fund to which they have rights as a citizen who will at various times pay varying amounts of tax and national insurance.
To be poor and asked if you need help can be a humiliating and upsetting experience. Asking for help even more so.
As we live in a world where many people do have to rely on personal compassion then personal charity is a compassionate act. But to me it is more compassionate to agree as a society to set up a fund for those in need without them having to accept the charity of their fellows.
a manageable portion of their wealth/income.
Great, define that.
Again that would be something for consultation and political campaigning. The politicians and parties put forward what they consider the most workable compromise and through the democratic process the country would come to its decision on what level is considered manageable and how that would be organised.
Your country has come to its current accepted levels of tax and protection by this process, as has mine. In my own country I would argue for greater protections and less social stigma for those who have need of it.
Compassion is the highest form. Of the following situations, which contains the most compassion?
- I sense you are in need and I help you with what it is you need. It may be money, or it may be education, or a room for a month, or a flight outta town, or simply advice, or merely a warm coat, or merely a friendly smile acknowledging your presence and sitting down in your proximity.
OR
- Anonymous government employees watch over the removal of a fifth of my paycheck. They take what they need, then send you a check for the amount you qualify for. We never meet, but I assume that because a huge chunk of my earnings was taken from me for your assistance, you are surely being helped.
I'd say the second one, because it happens for just about anybody who needs it, and lots of people can go ahead and do the first one as well, whereas people who advocate the primacy of the first one are more likely to be advocating the removal of the second.
As we live in a world where many people do have to rely on personal compassion then personal charity is a compassionate act. But to me it is more compassionate to agree as a society to set up a fund for those in need without them having to accept the charity of their fellows.
We also live in a world where people will do anything to get by on nothing. A world where many people don't want to help themselves and many who just don't want help. We could start by reforming our Mental Health system and start pumping money back into it in a a big way. That would most likely take a whole bunch of homeless people off the street. But running around throwing money at these problems via "Government" controlled and run organizations is
not the answer.
We also live in a world where people will do anything to get by on nothing.
Yeah.....ya know though I think most people actually do want to work (bear with me)..
When society sends large numbers of people a message that they are worthless and allows the market to create large pockets of unemployment coupled with low social mobility, that's a recipe for creating a subculture that feels it is *thinks how to phrase this* at war, or under attack from the wider culture. If that sub culture continues for long enough and a new generation is born to that sub culture, then you have a recipe for a sub culture that sees itself as separate and distinct from the wider community. That's when people begin to see the protections that are still left as something to take without putting back.
The answer is to exert enough controls over your economy so as to not produce ghettos of poverty and social exclusion. In the event that a country has already produced such ghettos you are faced with (the way I see it) two distinct paths of action. You can either a) become ever more strict in how that help is regulated and debarr as many people as you can, reducing the levels of protection as a way of making it even more unappealing in order to drive people to find work; thereby increasing the sense of social exclusion and 'attack'. Or, b) you
increase social protections whilst simultaneously trying to apply pressure and incentives to business to employ at home rather than sending jobs to Mexico and the Far East; alongside that you try to actively engage those communities in dialogue and make the justice system less brutal in the way it deals wth non-violent criminals (thereby removing some of the sense of being literally under attack by the economically active classes).
The problem with b) is that this solution would require more than a generation to reintegrate the sub-culture into the mainstream culture. The problem with a) is that it further alienates the two cultures from each other, creating an ever wider gulf and a siege mentality within the sub-culture; and resulting in the phenomenon of wealthy, gated communities existing within a short drive from housing complexes where simply walking down the street is a dangerous thing to do.
I believe that b) has the potential to reintegrate the cultures of the middle class and the cultures of the long-term, unemployed over a couple of generations resulting in a culture where, as in the mainstream, people want to be a part of the employed world.
Monday morning man probably needed help 10 or 20 years ago. Whether he needed help that day, nobody knows, because nobody asked him. It is rude for us to assume that he needed help when he didn't ask for it and maybe he only wanted to have a seat for a while. It's even rude to assume he wanted someone to sit next to him.
Now let's try this one!
Yea- how presumptuous of me!!! Ha!!!! Haa!!! I am such a bitch. He smelled so bad- like death-but i just come along and assume that everyone that is leaning at a right angle in their chair with a painful expression on their face has something wrong with them. Might need help.
Presumptuous bitch.......I also presumed that he
had just been helped by the hospital which is why he had the shoes on and might have needed some money.....and gotten some fucking bad and painful news on top of it.
Well he didn't turn it down when I gave him money, and hell, if someone approached me and gave me money....neither would I. I wasn't the Queen of Mercy either....I'm no saint....I just handed him money no questions asked.....pretty lazy of me really....Since when do I have to fucking ask to give people money?!? I didn't sit next to him either- I was the only one that would sit in his
general vicinity. Because that is
where I always sit. I just didn't go out of my way to avoid him or the situation either. By your tale you would have me plopping on his lap- so you could make some ridiculous point about helping people unasked.
Bitches.
You act like everyone that needs help asks for it! Who is presumptuous now? I don't care if my stomach fell out of my body with hunger.....I would never ask for anything and neither do a lot of people........People need to ask for help? No letting people keep any dignity- make them beg.
Dude here's some cash- see ya! I wish people would do that to me....
Whatever UT.
Go try that on someone that didn't just crawl from underneath a rock. Or someone that hides in a damned cubicle their whole life.
You act like everyone that needs help asks for it! Who is presumptuous now? I don't care if my stomach fell out of my body with hunger.....I would never ask for anything and neither do a lot of people........People need to ask for help? No letting people keep any dignity- make them beg.
This is why I favour a system of benefits
by right. You are not 'asking for help' in a good benefits system imo, you are accessing something to which you have a right. Much less humiliating.
Or someone that hides in a damned cubicle their whole life.
Ouch!
When the government tried to help, they created several generations of welfare dependant groups, that gave up working and just squirted out babies to increase their monthly stipend. A tremendous disservice to those people.
[quote=DanaC]
a manageable portion of their wealth/income.
Great, define that.[/QUOTE]
From each according to his ability.
To each according to his need.
Are you taking notes?
I'd say the second one, because it happens for just about anybody who needs it, and lots of people can go ahead and do the first one as well, whereas people who advocate the primacy of the first one are more likely to be advocating the removal of the second.
And that's where the rubber hits the road so to speak.
Gosh. In this deeply fractured society, it is now an option to believe that the other side is not just incorrect, not just wrong, not even just stupid, but actually broken.
Believe what you want. And then get ready for the twister.
We can't survive like this. We can't function like this. We can't live our lives believing that everybody else is a broken, sick fuck. It's not gonna work. We can't educate our children, we can't defend ourselves from enemies, we can't help the unfortunate.
Yesterday we had a study showing that almost all adult men avoid lost, crying children in malls. Why: they expect they will be charged with being a pedophile.
We simply can't go on like this. It won't end well.
The people who believe differently than you are perfectly normal people. Someday, you may need to ask them for help. What will be the result? Will they help you? Someday, they may ask you for help. Will you help them?
How are we going to come together? Especially if there comes a time when we really need to?
Welcome to the world of my generation. This doesn't even come close to scratching the surface of the conclusion most of us who've taken a good look around have come to. You're right, as a 21yo there's no
way I'd ever get close to a crying kid in a mall. The new golden rule is 'no good dead goes unpunished' we've known that from middle school:angry:. You also should never try to give someone CPR because you can become implicated in their lawsuit if things don't go well. Everything is now somebody else's fault, and so your #1 priority is to avoid involvement with other people in trouble.:mad:
In my honors classes in highschool we used to laugh half-heartedly about all sorts of morbid jokes about how we were working until 2am each night so that we would be good cows for the party kids and weed smokers to milk and abuse once we grew up.:banghead: You've created a generation where the intelligent are turned into cynical society haters, because that's what we've learned from school, the news, domestic policy, and everyone else sitting on the rung above us.
You know what we learned in health class in middle school? You should have seen the scared faces in the class when we covered the risks of sex. I'm not just talking about STD's here, we guys got to learn how we were legally screwed if a girl ever decided to file charges for anything. And then the next day our teacher carefully explained to the girls about how they should contact the authorities if they ever felt like they were being harassed or pressured in any way (not just sexually, just in any form). In HIGHSCHOOL!! You think I was going to risk an automatic criminal record if a girl and I had a falling out and she decided to be vindictive? :sweat::mad2:
Guess what? My generation is out there with full knowledge that anyone they don't intimately know has the power to fuck up the rest of their life. I could list dozens of people I know who I've traded stories with about this shit. Assume other people are just good, normal people?:eyebrow: Not on your fucking life!! Go and watch Brady Bunch reruns for that period in history. I'd like to send out a big fucking thanks-a-million for the society we're inheriting here:cuss::thankyou::cuss:.
I didn't see that post before, but you want to know what your kids think? A bunch of my friends and I from the honors organization on campus once actually toasted to faith in those we don't know, then we all grinned and almost spilled our drinks laughing. It's broken? You better fucking believe it.:behead:
We knew that "a manageable portion of their wealth/income" was code for full-blown fucking Marxism, but we were surprised that the code fell away so quickly.
When the government tried to help, they created several generations of welfare dependant groups, that gave up working and just squirted out babies to increase their monthly stipend.
Did they really?
We knew that "a manageable portion of their wealth/income" was code for full-blown fucking Marxism, but we were surprised that the code fell away so quickly.
I don't think I've ever hidden the fact that I take a marxist analysis.
Did they really?
Yes. By giving them just enough to get by, but not enough to get out, they perpetuated the ghettos.
Yes. By giving them just enough to get by, but not enough to get out, they perpetuated the ghettos.
Perhaps then if the benefits hadn't been tied so strongly to parenthood and the amounts given not been mere subsistence levels, t would have had a different effect. If I understand your argument correctly, the help that was offered was inadequate and therefore created a different set of problems rather than resolving the ones it was set up to resolve.
Ouch!
Yea......hmmm.....that was ungrateful of me....it's the same people that make sure I can come to places like these to be ungrateful. Better watch it.......
Temper check.........
But hey- someone else out there is using a drastic amount of emoticons...'spose I'm not the only one.
I've also been in my fair share of cubicles. Having an office with a door to shut..like right now...just probably makes me worse.
Attitude checked.
Perhaps then if the benefits hadn't been tied so strongly to parenthood and the amounts given not been mere subsistence levels, t would have had a different effect. If I understand your argument correctly, the help that was offered was inadequate and therefore created a different set of problems rather than resolving the ones it was set up to resolve.
Yep.
Perhaps then if the benefits hadn't been tied so strongly to parenthood and the amounts given not been mere subsistence levels, t would have had a different effect. If I understand your argument correctly, the help that was offered was inadequate and therefore created a different set of problems rather than resolving the ones it was set up to resolve.
Yes. The way if was handled it was almost mandatory for husband/dad to disappear, at least on paper, but too often in reality.... leaving welfare mom trapped in the system. Then welfare mom's daughters, feeling equally helpless, often getting pregnant in high school, then dropping out to work the only system they know. Rinse & repeat.
I oppose benefits by right because I don't believe in that right. I don't believe that we have an inalienable right to any sort of assistance. It is charity given by the rest of us. If you collect benefits then I hope there is a feeling connected to it of thankfulness that other people were kind enough to lend a hand at their own expense. If the government gives you $100 is it any different from my friends and I putting together $100 for you from among us?
If you have honestly fallen on hard times through no fault of your own, then say thank you and use it well. If you were stupid and are now paying the consequences, then you should definitely be humble when taking my money.
I oppose benefits by right because I don't believe in that right. I don't believe that we have an inalienable right to any sort of assistance. It is charity given by the rest of us. If you collect benefits then I hope there is a feeling connected to it of thankfulness that other people were kind enough to lend a hand at their own expense. If the government gives you $100 is it any different from my friends and I putting together $100 for you from among us?
Think of it more as society's savings club. When we are in work and solvent, as most of us are, most of the time, we pay in. If we are having difficulties and require that extra assistance, we draw on the savings. Unless a system is very badly managed and underfunded, having a benefits system increases people's economic viability/activity. Having a larger disposable income means people are less inclined to throw that income into the grey economy, instead they are more likely to put it into the open economyby buying things from shops. They are less likely to raise children in a chaotic and damaging environment and less likely to succomb to crime and drugs.
As long as the benefits are accompanied by better access to training and education and efforts are made to stop the 'race to the bottom' on wages which leads to factories closing in Detroit and reopening in Mexico, then people who are helped in this way are far more likely to rejoin the working population rather than become further and further isolated from it. Having returned to work someone is then putting back into the savings fund. If it's managed correctly, many of the people using that savings fund are also the people who pay into that fund.
In terms of the minority who will always disconnect themselves from the mainstream and take from the system without attemtping to pay back in: I consider that an acceptable loss leader on getting the majority out of poverty and social exclusion, back into economic activity and able to contribute to increasing the country's wealth/health.
Yes. The way if was handled it was almost mandatory for husband/dad to disappear, at least on paper, but too often in reality.... leaving welfare mom trapped in the system. Then welfare mom's daughters, feeling equally helpless, often getting pregnant in high school, then dropping out to work the only system they know. Rinse & repeat.
I'm not so sure. Reagan's "wellfare queen" was an early example of the right wing noise machine, and I suspect that the stories of women having babies to increase their checks have been similarly overblown.
Please Cicero, don't hold back your anger simply because I run the place.
And don't let my message #2 prevent you from going all-out, too. I was actually wondering how long it would take before we would go from that message, to some sort of assault on me. I figured first someone would use it as a springboard for their political side. Either one would be highly ironic and weak. Well of course, check and mate.
But there's a good side. It turns out that most people on the thread find my cubicle-farming to be deeply compassionate work. I make a good amount of money by doing that, rather than doing something in the outside world, and damn, I am now just full of compassion.
If you aren't paying as much tax as I am, perhaps you can be compassionate in some other way. Probably not AS compassionate, but not all of us are blessed with the intelligence and skills to reach this particular level of compassion.
Hey maybe you could try sucking dick? If you really suck a lot you can make more money, pay higher taxes, and then you can be compassionate too!
We had the same thing here under Thatcher: the teenage single mum who gets pregnant 'to get a council flat'. I daresay if you rtrawled the country you could have found a few girls who'd done exactly that...but mostly teenage girls had kids because they a) got accidentally preggers, b) had some vague notion of baby as somewhere across between a doll and a pet and hadn't really understood how tying and how much hard work they are, or c) they were troubled kids with a deep need for something that would be completely theirs, someone who would love them unconditionally.
There are other possible reasons. To suggest that across the country vast armies of girls were getting knocked up to get a council flat was disingenuous to say the least.
Hey maybe you could try sucking dick? If you really suck a lot you can make more money, pay higher taxes, and then you can be compassionate too!
She'd have to move to Nevada for that to work.
I figured first someone would use it as a springboard for their political side.
Yeah well, kind of hard to look at charity and compassion without looking at need, and I don't see how its possible to look at need without it being political. Man is a political animal, life is politics.
On an individual level I doubt there's anyone posting in this thread who is more, or less compassionate than the rest of us who are posting. We all express/act on that human instinct differently.
[eta]
Originally Posted by Undertoad
Hey maybe you could try sucking dick? If you really suck a lot you can make more money, pay higher taxes, and then you can be compassionate too!
Yeah, well the system pretty much has most of us sucking dick most of the time anyway.
Yea- how presumptuous of me!!! Ha!!!! Haa!!! I am such a bitch. He smelled so bad- like death-but i just come along and assume that everyone that is leaning at a right angle in their chair with a painful expression on their face has something wrong with them. Might need help.
Presumptuous bitch.......I also presumed that he had just been helped by the hospital which is why he had the shoes on and might have needed some money.....and gotten some fucking bad and painful news on top of it.
Well he didn't turn it down when I gave him money, and hell, if someone approached me and gave me money....neither would I. I wasn't the Queen of Mercy either....I'm no saint....I just handed him money no questions asked.....pretty lazy of me really....Since when do I have to fucking ask to give people money?!? I didn't sit next to him either- I was the only one that would sit in his general vicinity. Because that is where I always sit. I just didn't go out of my way to avoid him or the situation either. By your tale you would have me plopping on his lap- so you could make some ridiculous point about helping people unasked.
Bitches.
You act like everyone that needs help asks for it! Who is presumptuous now? I don't care if my stomach fell out of my body with hunger.....I would never ask for anything and neither do a lot of people........People need to ask for help? No letting people keep any dignity- make them beg.
Dude here's some cash- see ya! I wish people would do that to me....
Whatever UT.
Go try that on someone that didn't just crawl from underneath a rock. Or someone that hides in a damned cubicle their whole life.
So if the dude ran off an bought a dime bag from somebody or a fifth of MD 20/20 wine how did you just help him? further his addiction of feed his belly? That is why such actions are quite fruitless. Now walk up to the counter and buy the dude a sandwhich, good on you. Throwing money at them is wrong and most people who have experience with dealing with homeless people would tell you so IMHO.
When the government tried to help, they created several generations of welfare dependant groups, that gave up working and just squirted out babies to increase their monthly stipend. A tremendous disservice to those people.
And they are still doing it.
From each according to his ability.
To each according to his need.
Are you taking notes?
Certainly you are not trying to lecture to me about how I should "give" to worthy causes?
I don't think I've ever hidden the fact that I take a marxist analysis.
yea, if you haven't heard that system failed and continues to fail.
Think of it more as society's savings club. When we are in work and solvent, as most of us are, most of the time, we pay in. If we are having difficulties and require that extra assistance, we draw on the savings. Unless a system is very badly managed and underfunded, having a benefits system increases people's economic viability/activity. Having a larger disposable income means people are less inclined to throw that income into the grey economy, instead they are more likely to put it into the open economyby buying things from shops. They are less likely to raise children in a chaotic and damaging environment and less likely to succomb to crime and drugs.
As long as the benefits are accompanied by better access to training and education and efforts are made to stop the 'race to the bottom' on wages which leads to factories closing in Detroit and reopening in Mexico, then people who are helped in this way are far more likely to rejoin the working population rather than become further and further isolated from it. Having returned to work someone is then putting back into the savings fund. If it's managed correctly, many of the people using that savings fund are also the people who pay into that fund.
In terms of the minority who will always disconnect themselves from the mainstream and take from the system without attemtping to pay back in: I consider that an acceptable loss leader on getting the majority out of poverty and social exclusion, back into economic activity and able to contribute to increasing the country's wealth/health.
That is a pipe dream. People who get nothing for nothing will not suddenly recontribute to society. I see it all the time. People get an insurance settlement they owe to a health care provider (and who the hell knows why insurance companies send them the check in the first place?) and the individual runs out and buys a brand new truck. They just don't pay the bill. They expect something for nothing. People have learned through many generations that he way to get ahead in life is to take advantage of a generous society that gives them something for nothing. And they like it that way.
Yea- how presumptuous of me!!! Ha!!!! Haa!!! I am such a bitch. He smelled so bad- like death-but i just come along and assume that everyone that is leaning at a right angle in their chair with a painful expression on their face has something wrong with them. Might need help.
Presumptuous bitch.......I also presumed that he had just been helped by the hospital which is why he had the shoes on and might have needed some money.....and gotten some fucking bad and painful news on top of it.
Well he didn't turn it down when I gave him money, and hell, if someone approached me and gave me money....neither would I. I wasn't the Queen of Mercy either....I'm no saint....I just handed him money no questions asked.....pretty lazy of me really....Since when do I have to fucking ask to give people money?!? I didn't sit next to him either- I was the only one that would sit in his general vicinity. Because that is where I always sit. I just didn't go out of my way to avoid him or the situation either. By your tale you would have me plopping on his lap- so you could make some ridiculous point about helping people unasked.
Bitches.
You act like everyone that needs help asks for it! Who is presumptuous now? I don't care if my stomach fell out of my body with hunger.....I would never ask for anything and neither do a lot of people........People need to ask for help? No letting people keep any dignity- make them beg.
Dude here's some cash- see ya! I wish people would do that to me....
Whatever UT.
Go try that on someone that didn't just crawl from underneath a rock. Or someone that hides in a damned cubicle their whole life.
No stand-up guy to come along in your defense UT. :eyebrow:
I would but I am too dumbfounded at the moment. Maybe you should have called her a name instead of making up a sensible alternative scenario.
This is why I favour a system of benefits by right. You are not 'asking for help' in a good benefits system imo, you are accessing something to which you have a right. Much less humiliating.
that is bullshit. i have a
right to go look for a job to get money, i don't have a
right to be given money just because i don't have a job. the major disconnect here is that my view of life is that we were all
created equal. meaning we all come in screaming and naked. the commonality ends there. what we do with our gifts and abilities should determine what we achieve/receive in life. yes, some people are born into money. too damn bad. quit worrying about what they have and focus on what you have. you have a level of intelligence and a work ethic. use them. get as far as you can in life, but don't bitch and moan because someone gets farther.
there are plenty of examples of people stepping out of poverty and achieving success - whatever that means to them. they achieved something because they thought something was a worthy goal and they did what it takes to achieve it.
if you want something bad enough to work for it, you can achieve it. if you can't it is because you didn't want it bad enough. end of story.
yea, if you haven't heard that system failed and continues to fail.
I said I took a marxist analysis (which I do) I did not say I favour a Russian soviet system (which as you say failed). I take marxist analysis and live in a nation which combaines capitalism with socialist values. That system hasn't failed. It works very well in most of Europe.
that is bullshit. i have a right to go look for a job to get money, i don't have a right to be given money just because i don't have a job.
Agreed. I, however, live in a country where I have a right as a citizen to access benefits should I find myself unemployed or working for low pay. I consider that a better system than one which insists on gratitude for society's 'charity'. I personally think my own system could be improved and people should be given more help, not less. Hence my suggestion that in my view a properly run benefits system should be seen and accessed as a right by any citizen who needs it.
Actually, I'm probably using the wrong word when I say 'right', the word that's more appropriate is 'entitlement'.
If you are accessing something to which you are entitled as a citizen, that is less humiliating and damaging than if you are asking for help/charity which is not an entitlement.
I'm not so sure. Reagan's "wellfare queen" was an early example of the right wing noise machine, and I suspect that the stories of women having babies to increase their checks have been similarly overblown.
I am, I've witnessed it first hand.
Spade makes some conclusions that are evidence he doesn't understand how it works at street level.
No stand-up guy to come along in your defense UT. :eyebrow:
He's a big boy, he can take it.
[SIZE=1]Well he didn't turn it down when I gave him money,[/SIZE] and hell, if someone approached me and gave me money....neither would I.
R e a l l y ?
Or was that just a throwaway line, something you said to justify your position, that you didn't really think about.
If someone approached me and gave me money I would never accept it. (And then I would go home and re-think my decision to wear sweat pants everywhere.)
Accepting charity you don't need is fundamentally dishonest.
..."Around you" being the key. After Katrina, I donated to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund. I am not "around" New Orleans. I could not go to New Orleans to help, or to take a car load of supplies. I did not know anyone in New Orleans to send a check to. How would I help them, using your philosophy?
...
Please answer my question.
...OR
- Anonymous government employees watch over the removal of a fifth of my paycheck. They take what they need, then send you a check for the amount you qualify for. We never meet, but I assume that because a huge chunk of my earnings was taken from me for your assistance, you are surely being helped.
First of all, I don't think all 20% taken from your check goes toward helping those in need.
Can you or I provide the same services that a full-time, well-trained social worker can? Can you or I identify mental illness, refer the person in need to a qualified care giver? Do you or I have the backing and buying power of the government? IMO, a
professional will do a better job than you or I would be able to.
We also live in a world where people will do anything to get by on nothing. ....
I don't get that. What sane person says "yeah, $800 a month - this is the life!"
We knew that "a manageable portion of their wealth/income" was code for full-blown fucking Marxism, but we were surprised that the code fell away so quickly.
How much is enough?
Yes. By giving them just enough to get by, but not enough to get out, they perpetuated the ghettos.
Could it be that entry-level jobs don't give enough of an improved quality of life, over welfare subsustence, to make it worth getting a job? I've read where people get a job, and have a lower standard of living than when they were on welfare. When employed, they have to pay for health insurance, childcare, transportation, maybe better clothing, etc. Perhaps the increase in minimum wage will widen this gap.
She'd have to move to Nevada for that to work.
Yeah - TYPICALLY, it's the folks who want to do away with welfare that also don't want to leagalize cock sucking.
So if the dude ran off an bought a dime bag from somebody or a fifth of MD 20/20 wine how did you just help him? further his addiction of feed his belly? That is why such actions are quite fruitless. ...
And if bought some wholesome, organic, nutritious food, the actions would be fruitful. If you can predict the fruitful vs fruitless, maybe you could help out there...
...if you want something bad enough to work for it, you can achieve it. if you can't it is because you didn't want it bad enough. end of story.
I want so bad to run a two minute mile, be King of the World, be 7 feet tall, and I'm working on it real hard. How hard do I have to work?
how hard have you tried? my guess is you really haven't tried to do any of those things.
there is a huge difference between saying "i want to have enough money for a fancy car and a big house... now pass me a beer", and "i want to have enough money for a fancy car and a big house, now pass me that pen so i can sketch out my plan".
saying you want something is not the same as committing yourself to achieving it. and, yeah, you can revert to your ridiculous examples for a response if you want.
Certainly you are not trying to lecture to me about how I should "give" to worthy causes?
I can see you are not taking notes.
Had you been paying attention, you would have noticed that DanaC said:
"a manageable portion of their wealth/income."
and then you said:
"Great, define that."
and then I said
"From each according to his ability.
To each according to his need."
I answered your request for clarification of DanaC's statement. Lecture? Not really. Perhaps you have a guilty conscience.
..."Around you" being the key. After Katrina, I donated to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund. I am not "around" New Orleans. I could not go to New Orleans to help, or to take a car load of supplies. I did not know anyone in New Orleans to send a check to. How would I help them, using your philosophy?
...
Please answer my question.
how hard have you tried? my guess is you really haven't tried to do any of those things.
there is a huge difference between saying "i want to have enough money for a fancy car and a big house... now pass me a beer", and "i want to have enough money for a fancy car and a big house, now pass me that pen so i can sketch out my plan".
saying you want something is not the same as committing yourself to achieving it. and, yeah, you can revert to your ridiculous examples for a response if you want.
My "ridiculous" list was to illustrate how ridiculous your statement is. There are plenty of things you can try real hard to do, yet not accomplish. I'm sure that anything I suggest would be ridiculous to you, though. :headshake
To answer your question, I don't have a problem with charity groups. I support a few myself. There is a huge difference between a charity group that I can voluntarily give my time and money to, and the government that takes my money with no promise of efficiency.
and on the second issue, this has been a discussion of economics and charity, you stepped in with "i want to be 7 feet tall". That's ridiculous, that's not a goal, it's a fantasy.
State a financial or social status goal and it can be achieved by someone willing to do what it takes. (obvious caveats for physical or mental disability with some goals)
Goal: I want to have my home paid off in 15 years with no other debt. I would like to also own a beachhouse in mexico. I would like to semi-retire in 15 years and split my time between these two locations. [SIZE="1"]not my actual goals, just examples[/SIZE]
Requirement: X dollars
Task: Build business to generate Y income annually, putting Z aside...
Get the point? If that goal is really a priority then you can achieve it.
It may have just been a dumb movie, but Pursuit of Happyness was based on a real guy. Some people have the drive to do what it takes to achieve even their most ridiculous goals. Most people sit around and bitch about why they can't achieve anything, and it almost always boils down to someone is "holding me back". BS. You hold you back.
R e a l l y ?
Or was that just a throwaway line, something you said to justify your position, that you didn't really think about.
If someone approached me and gave me money I would never accept it. (And then I would go home and re-think my decision to wear sweat pants everywhere.)
Accepting charity you don't need is fundamentally dishonest.
No....it's something else entirely.
Random gifts are awesome! If someone approached me and said hey- here's a river rock take it- same thing.....
You are right, I didn't think that through........
I don't get that. What sane person says "yeah, $800 a month - this is the life!"
The ones that like having that guaranteed base to back up what they can hustle on the street or make under the table.
Could it be that entry-level jobs don't give enough of an improved quality of life, over welfare subsustence, to make it worth getting a job? I've read where people get a job, and have a lower standard of living than when they were on welfare. When employed, they have to pay for health insurance, childcare, transportation, maybe better clothing, etc.
Yes, that's exactly the problem. Damn little incentive to risk giving it up.
I can see you are not taking notes.
Had you been paying attention, you would have noticed that DanaC said:
"a manageable portion of their wealth/income."
and then you said:
"Great, define that."
and then I said
"From each according to his ability.
To each according to his need."
I answered your request for clarification of DanaC's statement. Lecture? Not really. Perhaps you have a guilty conscience.
No you didn't answer the question. All you did was give a trite little quote.
According to his ability... how much is that? Who determines my ability, you?
How do you know how much I can spare without jeopardizing my lifestyle, my security, or even my needs.
How do you know if I'm supporting aging parents, a child with expensive special needs, 3 ex-wives and 14 children?
Obviously you can't. More obviously you shouldn't.
Yes, I did answer his question. Because you dislike, misunderstand or disagree with my answer doesn't change the fact that I did clarify DanaC's phrase. I'm sorry you think the quote is trite.
According to his ability... how much is that? Are you seriously suggesting there is a discrete finite numeric answer to this question? It is obvious to me that there isn't such a single number. Who determines ability, me? No. Ideally, practically, *you* determine what your ability is, just as l123 has eloquently described elsewhere.
I did not and do not pretend that I know how much you can spare without jeopardizing yadda yadda yadda... Please.
And as to the Marxist Chicken Littles in the audience, I ask you: How is this point of view different from our current system of progressive income tax rates? Those with more, contribute more, and those with less, contribute less. As a point of view, not as a statistical reality to four decimal places.
I know as you all do that there are many example of gaming the system for individual gain. There are far far more examples of this system working undramatically well where people give / surrender / part with / yield / pay willingly or unwillingly their taxes that don't involve lawbreaking or law bending.
As to my *opinion* about your ability to pay, you know what they say. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. And in this case, I'll keep mine both to myself; I don't feel like sharing either with you.
And as to the Marxist Chicken Littles in the audience, I ask you: How is this point of view different from our current system of progressive income tax rates? Those with more, contribute more, and those with less, contribute less. As a point of view, not as a statistical reality to four decimal places.
I think the distinction lies in the way that system is balanced/weighted. Though it is progressive, it is not progressive enough (for myself, as a Marxist Chicken Little). I personally favour a more distributive approach to taxation.
It's also about intent. Is the intent just to bring in enough revenue to run the country (with the allowance made for differencnes in income and therefore percentage of the burden), or is the intent to try and bring about a more equitable society?
Obviously, I realise that not everyone agrees that this would be the effect of redistributive taxation, or even that this is something that should be 'socially engineered' in that way.
Last Sundays Get Fuzzy says it all.
I see. Well, I'll change my plans for after law school then. I'll take out loans to pay for it of course, but I'll just pay the minimum each month since there's no advantage to being debt free. I'll spend not only my generous paycheck, but I'll run up credit card debt like a typical person. Cars, a huge house, fancy vacations and all the techno-toys I want, I'll push myself as far as I can just like other people do. Then, when my house of cards topples I'll declare bankruptcy and use my knowledge as a lawyer to write off everything I can as necessities; after all, why should I give up my house when others aren't forced to? I'll end up paying back 10 cents for every dollar I owed, and in a few years I can start the whole thing over again. And while I'm unemployed I'll have Dana there to defend my right to money even though I was a complete asshole and screwed so many other people over. It's the same thing that lots of other people do, I'll just do it a bit bigger. I love my rights!
I believe the better you treat people, the better they are likely to behave.
I think the distinction lies in the way that system is balanced/weighted. Though it is progressive, it is not progressive enough (for myself, as a Marxist Chicken Little). I personally favour a more distributive approach to taxation.
In other words, redistribute wealth so that no one has more than Dana? I notice that communist sympathizers tend to think that their level of wealth and living is just about 'right'. Are you willing to work harder than you do now, wherever the central planners send you, at whatever job they decree for you, and live in a cardboard box? By the standards of many countries, you are 'too rich'. You could always send them all your income and live on the street, if you believe in your principles. The problem arises when you want to force everyone else to do the same.
It's also about intent. Is the intent just to bring in enough revenue to run the country (with the allowance made for differencnes in income and therefore percentage of the burden), or is the intent to try and bring about a more equitable society?
Here's where the rubber meets the road. Progressive taxation isn't enough for you; but how do you define a 'more equitable society'? You're talking about a massive seizure of wealth and assets with a view to making unequal things equal (Aristotle didn't approve of this). The problem is that a) such a seizure of property and the product of individual labor will require violence, since no intelligent person will voluntarily give everything they have produced to people who haven't made it and can't continue to produce it; and b) the fact is that, while we're all equal in terms of being born with rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we're not all the same. The guy who started a company and developed it into a huge, profitable enterprise is
not exchangeable with the guy who mops the floors. They both do important work, but put the floor-mopping guy in charge and you get what happened in the Soviet Union.
As an aside, although you insist that the Soviet Union isn't an example of Marxism in practice, Marx did view revolution as necessary to his program. Solzhenitsyn and Rand, who were far more intimately familiar with Soviet Marxism than you ever can have been, knew they were living under Marxism and that Marxism requires violence and oppression. How can you say you're a Marxist, and then claim that an essential part of Marx's program was a 'mistake'? The 'mistake' is inherent in his philosophy.
Obviously, I realise that not everyone agrees that this would be the effect of redistributive taxation, or even that this is something that should be 'socially engineered' in that way.
Very true. Social engineering is a euphemism for central control and oppression. You can't redistribute all the wealth in a country to be 'nice' to one group of people without doing violence to another group. All the talk about democracy is a sham.
I believe the better you treat people, the better they are likely to behave.
Depends on your definitions. You appear to think that treating people 'better' means throwing money and assets at them that they haven't earned. This sort of 'treatment' without an expectation of commensurate responsibility only leads to people despising what they are given, and despising the givers.
A case in point: in Moosonee (on James Bay), where my husband and I practiced medicine when our oldest child was small, the government provided taxpayer-funded housing for both band status and non-status Indians. Fairly frequently the local band would complain to the government that the housing was in bad repair and needed to be replaced. It happens that my brother-in-law, who is a cabinet maker, was contracted to provide new kitchens and baths in the housing that the government built around that time. He was paid to put in very good quality cabinets - not base, cheap stuff; and he did. When he returned two weeks later to deliver a few more cabinets to one last house, he checked on the other houses to see if anything else was required. In the majority of brand-new houses there were holes in the walls, and cabinets had been ripped right off the walls. No one took care of the houses or fittings, because no one there had paid for them.
In this same community, when I made house calls, I would typically visit a house that had broken windows, holes in the walls, and dirt everywhere. But there was a big TV and satellite dish, new snow machines outside, and new trucks. The government-provided housing (exactly the same stuff as I lived in with my family) was trashed and the welfare checks had gone on the luxuries. The clinic was expected to provide the baby formula and medicines that people 'couldn't afford'.
I think that expecting integrity and responsibility from people is actually treating them 'better' than giving them endless handouts. That proved true in our practice, where we expected people to be on time (and we respected their time by also being on time - really!), and expected people to take responsibility in certain things. We developed an excellent relationship. If we had not asked anything of our practice, we would have received exactly what we had asked for.
Yes, I did answer his question. Because you dislike, misunderstand or disagree with my answer doesn't change the fact that I did clarify DanaC's phrase. I'm sorry you think the quote is trite.
It doesn't define what a "manageable portion" is, and that was his question. All you did was change "manageable portion" to "ability"... another nebulous term.
According to his ability... how much is that? Are you seriously suggesting there is a discrete finite numeric answer to this question? It is obvious to me that there isn't such a single number. Who determines ability, me? No. Ideally, practically, *you* determine what your ability is, just as l123 has eloquently described elsewhere.
There is no way I can determine my ability, when it's a tax, imposed by the government. They tend to get pissy when we try to tell them how much they can take.
I did not and do not pretend that I know how much you can spare without jeopardizing yadda yadda yadda... Please.
Exactly my point, and neither can anyone else, but me.
And as to the Marxist Chicken Littles in the audience, I ask you: How is this point of view different from our current system of progressive income tax rates? Those with more, contribute more, and those with less, contribute less. As a point of view, not as a statistical reality to four decimal places.
Yes, we've seen the ponderous, inefficient, bureaucracy, that grows out of that and most other government programs.
I know as you all do that there are many example of gaming the system for individual gain. There are far far more examples of this system working undramatically well where people give / surrender / part with / yield / pay willingly or unwillingly their taxes that don't involve lawbreaking or law bending.
Things the government does without the ponderous, inefficient, bureaucracy? Without the one-cure-fits-all-ills inflexability, that allows some to game the system while deserving others are denied?
As to my *opinion* about your ability to pay, you know what they say. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. And in this case, I'll keep mine both to myself; I don't feel like sharing either with you.
So you are
not going to answer his question.
I answered your request for clarification of DanaC's statement. Lecture? Not really. Perhaps you have a guilty conscience.
Far from it. You never gave an acceptable answer. Just some esoteric BS. I give plenty and am far from carrying around the extra baggage of guilt for the poor down trodden who care not to care for themselves.:rolleyes:
Actually, I'm probably using the wrong word when I say 'right', the word that's more appropriate is 'entitlement'.
If you are accessing something to which you are entitled as a citizen, that is less humiliating and damaging than if you are asking for help/charity which is not an entitlement.
Entitlements are earned. You don't get them for breathing. You get them because they are earned based on your previous contributions to a system.
You are not entitled to happiness in our system, you are entitled to the pursuit of it, not the end result.
Originally Posted by TheMercenary
We also live in a world where people will do anything to get by on nothing. ....
I don't get that. What sane person says "yeah, $800 a month - this is the life!"
Originally Posted by TheMercenary
So if the dude ran off an bought a dime bag from somebody or a fifth of MD 20/20 wine how did you just help him? further his addiction of feed his belly? That is why such actions are quite fruitless. ...
And if bought some wholesome, organic, nutritious food, the actions would be fruitful. If you can predict the fruitful vs fruitless, maybe you could help out there...
Those who get money and or services for nothing Are quite happy to say "This is the life!".
Those who know and care for people of the street can almost without doubt promise that money given to the dude on the street can tell you that it is a bad idea to give them cash.
And as to the Marxist Chicken Littles in the audience, I ask you: How is this point of view different from our current system of progressive income tax rates? Those with more, contribute more, and those with less, contribute less. As a point of view, not as a statistical reality to four decimal places.
Well to bad that is not how the Marxist system works. Our progressive taxation system is far from Marxist. And btw, I don't support the current system of taxation.
I believe the better you treat people, the better they are likely to behave.
Another pipe dream. Attitudes like that will make you fresh meat.
In other words, redistribute wealth so that no one has more than Dana?
That's not what I said. I am talking about a change in the balance of redistributive taxation, not instituting a communist revolution. In my own country we used to have a system of 'super tax' for the highest earners. That supertax had those earners paying £0.90 in every £1 that they earned above the threshold.
Even I think that's too much. It damaged the country and led to problems. But, I think we've now gone too far the other way, with the highest earners paying ( I believe) £0.40 in every £1. What I am in favour of is an increase in the current level without going as high as we did in the 70s.
Like I say, what I am talking about is changing the balance of that taxation system, not abandoning capitalism in favour of a workers' state.
As to the 'marxism' thing. Yes, he saw revolution as a necessary phase to go through in order to achieve a workers' state. But that was in a particular time and place and yes I think he got that part wrong. When I say I take a marxist analysis, I am talking about a way of looking at the relationship between the owners and the producers of wealth. Like many 'marxists' or 'socialists' in Europe I believe that perspective still has much to tell us about the world and is still relevant.
You mentioned Aristotle. Another philospher whose thoughts on the world still have relevance today. But also, like anybody writing in a different era to our own there will be elements of his thinking which do not apply to the modern world (read 'Politics' and how it deals with the issue of slavery and the role of women in society) which were central parts of his worldview and which if we follow your logic should mean we cease to apply all his logic/philosphy to the modern world.
The world changes. People write and philosophise to the world as it is to them. Some of what they write and philosophise still applies to our world, some of it is consigned to the point in time when they were writing.
Another pipe dream. Attitudes like that will make you fresh meat.
Attitudes like that underpin much of what has been termed European Socialism.
That supertax had those earners paying £0.90 in every £1 that they earned above the threshold.
Even I think that's too much. It damaged the country and led to problems. But, I think we've now gone too far the other way, with the highest earners paying ( I believe) £0.40 in every £1. What I am in favour of is an increase in the current level without going as high as we did in the 70s.
England saw the inevitable result of drastic forced distribution of wealth when the supertax was in place. Those who had previously earned more either left the country or stopped earning. The trouble is, with the top few percent of earners basically supporting the entire country (in this country, the top 25% of earners pay 85% of all taxes; the top 1% of earners pay 37% of all taxes), when you remove their will to be productive by stealing most of their income, you have nothing left to redistribute.
I suspect that the top marginal tax rate in England is probably better than 40% once hidden taxes are added in. In Canada the official top
federal marginal rate is 29%. Sounds great. But with provincial taxes, health tax, and the Canadian version of the supertax, someone earning in the top ten percent pays more than 50% of income to taxes. Then there are high property taxes and a 14% sales tax on all goods and services. At that point there's a serious disincentive to continue being productive.
As to the 'marxism' thing. Yes, he saw revolution as a necessary phase to go through in order to achieve a workers' state. But that was in a particular time and place and yes I think he got that part wrong.
When it's a critical part of his program, can you then truly say you're a Marxist? You seem to have created your own version, which is fair enough, but when you say you're a Marxist it leads people to think of his program, not yours.
When I say I take a marxist analysis, I am talking about a way of looking at the relationship between the owners and the producers of wealth. Like many 'marxists' or 'socialists' in Europe I believe that perspective still has much to tell us about the world and is still relevant.
But the owners of wealth
are its producers, i.e. the ones who started the companies to produce goods that people want. The line workers in this analogy haven't the knowledge or ability to start that company and run it; if they did, they wouldn't be on the line. And not all wealth is produced in factories. Someone who writes a book or composes music or invents something that no one else can, or has done, owns that. You could take away their earnings and give them to other people to 'help' them create things, but you wouldn't achieve your object. I believe that the 'marxist' perspective only panders to envy and resentment, and is actually in serious error.
You mentioned Aristotle. Another philospher whose thoughts on the world still have relevance today. But also, like anybody writing in a different era to our own there will be elements of his thinking which do not apply to the modern world (read 'Politics' and how it deals with the issue of slavery and the role of women in society) which were central parts of his worldview and which if we follow your logic should mean we cease to apply all his logic/philosphy to the modern world.
???I didn't apply any logic to Aristotle's worldview; I said that one of his ideas was useful and true: that it's a bad idea to attempt to make unequal things equal. Instead of diverting the discussion with references to slavery and the role of women, why not address the issue that people are
not all the same and therefore interchangeable, and that the mopper of floors may do an admirable job cleaning the tile but is not exchangeable with whoever started and runs the company?
I said that one of his ideas was useful and true: that it's a bad idea to attempt to make unequal things equal.
What would you consider equal? With the assumption that humans are naturally unequal, do we deserve unequal rights, unequal treatment, unequal pay? I'm not a big fan of this quote/mindset because it is too subjective, we say that all humans deserve some universal equality in some aspects of life while we should have inequality in others. Where is the line if there is even one?
Honestly, I believe equal pay could easily work for humans since pay is an unnatural asset, which is much more compatible with equality than natural traits such as strength, smarts, looks, and charisma. The reason why I do not think equal pay will work for western society is that we put so much emphasis on money since that is what divides us into classes. If humans grew up in a classless society, money would seem no more important to us than our ability to vote and our hierarchy would change to prestige and respect.
That is the biggest flaw I see in Communism, humans can not successfully switch from a society that puts so much emphasis on money as a divider in our hierarchy to a system that makes us equal in that area. It has nothing to do with money itself because the same thing has happened in the past with areas such as rights. Equality in terms of rights did not happen when blacks and whites were told to be equal, and a fight still exists to this day but each generation gets more and more used to the idea of equal rights because we are raised in a more tolerant environment.
If a generation is raised in an environment that puts little emphasis of the importance of money, a society where there is equal pay will flourish nicely. Just that, I do not think that will ever happen or at least not for a few hundred years.
What would you consider equal? With the assumption that humans are naturally unequal, do we deserve unequal rights, unequal treatment, unequal pay? I'm not a big fan of this quote/mindset because it is too subjective, we say that all humans deserve some universal equality in some aspects of life while we should have inequality in others. Where is the line if there is even one?
Being equal means not a subject of someone else, that's all. It doesn't mean you have, or deserve, equal abilities, equal resources or equal rewards.
Honestly, I believe equal pay could easily work for humans since pay is an unnatural asset, which is much more compatible with equality than natural traits such as strength, smarts, looks, and charisma.
It's not unnatural at all. Since the dawn of mankind, humans have had to make an effort to survive. Hunting, gathering, making tools and seeking shelter, rewarded the best with more comfort.
Those efforts evolved into farming, manufacturing and building, but the goal was still survival, and for the best at it, the reward is more comfort.
When the efforts became organized, for economies of scale, barter was no longer practical, so money was used to keep track of individual efforts. That paycheck is the reward for your effort to survive, which is as natural as it comes.
The reason why I do not think equal pay will work for western society is that we put so much emphasis on money since that is what divides us into classes. If humans grew up in a classless society, money would seem no more important to us than our ability to vote and our hierarchy would change to prestige and respect.
There never has been, there is not now and there never will be, a classless society.
It is impossible to have a "society" without organization, and organization needs leadership, so that the pigs will always be more equal than others.
That is the biggest flaw I see in Communism, humans can not successfully switch from a society that puts so much emphasis on money as a divider in our hierarchy to a system that makes us equal in that area.
You have to understand what money is, how and why people get it, as well as why people want it. Stop thinking of money as something that justs exists and should be divided up. Realize it's a representation of, a reward for, skill and effort.
It has nothing to do with money itself because the same thing has happened in the past with areas such as rights. Equality in terms of rights did not happen when blacks and whites were told to be equal, and a fight still exists to this day but each generation gets more and more used to the idea of equal rights because we are raised in a more tolerant environment.
Blacks and whites were not told to be equal. They were told to stop fucking with each other because of color, and there is a big difference. They were told they had an equal right to make an effort and be rewarded for it, without being restricted because of their color/race. But there is no guarantee anyone will be successful or even survive.
If a generation is raised in an environment that puts little emphasis of the importance of money, a society where there is equal pay will flourish nicely. Just that, I do not think that will ever happen or at least not for a few hundred years.
When you understand what money really is, you'll see that's contrary to human nature and highly unlikely.
Wow...people assume that since I gave some money away unasked that I was presumptuous and not helpful at all.....but presuming that he went to spend it on drugs and beer is ok?
Proving my point as I'm trying to make it? Maybe he needed money to call his momma? Who cares.
I let him keep some dignity by assuming that he was an adult that could possibly spend his money on something useful. Or not....that's the point of gifting anything...maybe it will make a difference in someones life or not. You never know. If you buy someone a steak and they choke to death on it is it your fault for buying it? Poor people shouldn't get gifted money because they are automatically suspect. That's so shitty. This is an example of the status and class warfare rearing it's ugly little head again.
When the "Monday Morning Man" story began my financial situation was contrastedly different than it is now. Now I really do hope that when I need it there will be help provided, and no judgements are made about what I'm going to buy. Because you never know do you. My little world is starting to crumble.....fuck it...maybe I will go suck some dick UT if it means getting through this recent change in all my financial affairs. Or just do the side-business that I was planning in the first place.....Wait....sucking dick is "bad" maybe I'll do that because that's what I'm about. Oh, I know you are going to be pissed: I wouldn't pay taxes on sucking dick UT. It's taxing and compassionate enough as it is I'm sure.....Maybe sucking dick is more of an honest exchange than the things I do for work every day? Not sure......could be true. Sounds true to me but maybe not. I have thought that before.
I already said that my comments were unfair and not justified. You obviously aren't going to listen to a sincere apology for that. So I'm not going to make it again. It's not just because you are a leader on this board....I don't pander. It's because it was uncalled for and I know it. I would have tried to erase it before you saw it if someone hadn't commented on it so fast- because that behavior isn't like me and there was no reason for it other than just plain acting petty.
It's really not usually like me to personally attack people. Hey- I guess there is a human bone in my body. I'm going to get over it and be more kind. (to everyone)
UT-You didn't check me by any means. I quickly tried to make up for it myself. So don't go and give yourself a pat on the back for being a jerk back. Nothing good came of that. Which is why I don't usually take up that kind of attitude. More good has probably come from sucking dick. Ooohh. Sucking dick- big whoop. Please don't alter my statements or stories just to suit your purposes whether I agree with you or not. Just a request. This is all.
On that note: I hope everyone is having a nice weekend, and I will play nice....not because people try and sit on my chest when I'm not nice. It's because I think myself, amongst others, need to enhance rather than destroy. Too much negative energy about....make a concerted effort not to create it. I catch myself doing it and it's not right.
Being equal means not a subject of someone else, that's all. It doesn't mean you have, or deserve, equal abilities, equal resources or equal rewards.
I can accept that definition but it still doesn't stop the argument of how far we should push for equality in other areas, equal education for example, besides being a subject of someone else. There is still debate on how far should we go for equality which still means there isn't a clear cut line.
And also, do you think you could truly be free of being controlled by someone more powerful than you in a hierarchical system? Do you think we have equality in your definition in the United States right now?
It's not unnatural at all. Since the dawn of mankind, humans have had to make an effort to survive. Hunting, gathering, making tools and seeking shelter, rewarded the best with more comfort.
Those efforts evolved into farming, manufacturing and building, but the goal was still survival, and for the best at it, the reward is more comfort.
I was talking about biologically natural, we are not born with money and we can grow it within ourselves without taking it from someone else, I should have been more specific.
When the efforts became organized, for economies of scale, barter was no longer practical, so money was used to keep track of individual efforts. That paycheck is the reward for your effort to survive, which is as natural as it comes.
This assumes that this is the only way to survive, just because we evolved a monetary system doesn't mean it is impossible to survive without this specific kind. A communal society works much differently than a individualistic one.
And the idea of the paycheck is not what I think is as so unnatural but the idea of one person gets a greater chunk than someone else is a idea that started only a few thousand years ago. People in hunter-gatherer societies didn't have one person with all the food while others starved. The fact that humans have lived both ways make the argument of a hierarchal system determining who can eat or not being natural or unnatural pointless.
There never has been, there is not now and there never will be, a classless society.
I will agree that there will never be a truly classless society but you can change it to a much different level than we have today.
It is impossible to have a "society" without organization, and organization needs leadership, so that the pigs will always be more equal than others.
You can have leadership in a classless society. If you have a company where the manager makes the same as workers you have a classless system with leadership. It is impossible to have a hierarchical free society, which does not mean class even though they are very closely related.
You have to understand what money is, how and why people get it, as well as why people want it. Stop thinking of money as something that justs exists and should be divided up. Realize it's a representation of, a reward for, skill and effort.
It is a representation of a reward for societies value of skill and effort. Just because a manager makes 50 times more than a worker does not mean the manager is 50 times more skilled or put in 50 times more effort, just that society values a manager 50 times more than a regular worker. In a communist society, the idea is that the social value of a manager and regular worker is the same therefore they should be paid the same.
Blacks and whites were not told to be equal. They were told to stop fucking with each other because of color, and there is a big difference. They were told they had an equal right to make an effort and be rewarded for it, without being restricted because of their color/race. But there is no guarantee anyone will be successful or even survive.
Thats bullshit, the idea of white supremacy is that whites are more advanced biologically than people of color so the people of color didn't have the same rights as whites. Now, it is socially accepted that whites and blacks should have the same rights.
When you understand what money really is, you'll see that's contrary to human nature and highly unlikely.
Its contrary to our western nature and is very unlikely for a western society to change to a society that will minimalize class. I am not a pro-classless society anyways, I am just against the extremity of the class society we have now.
I can accept that definition but it still doesn't stop the argument of how far we should push for equality in other areas, equal education for example, besides being a subject of someone else. There is still debate on how far should we go for equality which still means there isn't a clear cut line.
You throw "equality" around like it's the be all, end all, to every social ill. There has never been equality in anything, and I don't think it's achievable or in most cases desirable. What we should be striving for is trying to eliminate stumbling blocks for people to advance their personal achievement, but if the kid has an IQ of 75 he's not going to Harvard, no matter what tools we give him.
Give every kid a solid basic education in the 3-Rs, then in High School provide different paths to choose from that will prepare them to make their way in the world.
And also, do you think you could truly be free of being controlled by someone more powerful than you in a hierarchical system? Do you think we have equality in your definition in the United States right now?
There is no equality and no system that's not hierarchical. If you chose to live in a society, rather than Ted Kazinski's cabin, then you have to deal with it, like everyone else. But, unlike the commie states, you still have the free choice of the cabin.
I was talking about biologically natural, we are not born with money and we can grow it within ourselves without taking it from someone else, I should have been more specific.
Biologically, there is even less equality than politically.
This assumes that this is the only way to survive, just because we evolved a monetary system doesn't mean it is impossible to survive without this specific kind. A communal society works much differently than a individualistic one.
Been there, done that, from Shakers to hippie communes. They all failed.
And the idea of the paycheck is not what I think is as so unnatural but the idea of one person gets a greater chunk than someone else is a idea that started only a few thousand years ago. People in hunter-gatherer societies didn't have one person with all the food while others starved. The fact that humans have lived both ways make the argument of a hierarchal system determining who can eat or not being natural or unnatural pointless.
No, the guy that shot the dear shared it with the others, but he still got the best cut. That's the way it's always been, commensurate reward for value. It doesn't matter that 12 other hunters worked just as hard, if they didn't produce results.
I will agree that there will never be a truly classless society but you can change it to a much different level than we have today.
Not unless the people want it, and I don't hear much clamor except from a few idealists.
You can have leadership in a classless society. If you have a company where the manager makes the same as workers you have a classless system with leadership. It is impossible to have a hierarchical free society, which does not mean class even though they are very closely related.
Your right, a manager that takes on the responsibility and accepts the same compensation as the workers, has no class.
It is a representation of a reward for societies value of skill and effort. Just because a manager makes 50 times more than a worker does not mean the manager is 50 times more skilled or put in 50 times more effort, just that society values a manager 50 times more than a regular worker.
No, not society's value of skill and effort. Society doesn't determine jack shit. It's the boss, the owner, of the business that determines the value of skill and effort, and determines the compensation, not society.
In a communist society, the idea is that the social value of a manager and regular worker is the same therefore they should be paid the same.
And communist societies don't work.
Thats bullshit, the idea of white supremacy is that whites are more advanced biologically than people of color so the people of color didn't have the same rights as whites.
What the fuck are you talking about? You said whites and blacks "were told to be equal". I presumed you were talking about the civil rights movement and federal court rulings/legislation. They were
not told to be equal, they were told not to fuck with each other.
Now, it is socially accepted that whites and blacks should have the same rights.
You're dreaming. "Socially accepted" is a bullshit term that means nothing, except politically correct. It's politically correct to say that whites and blacks should have the same rights, but that doesn't mean everyone feels that way... ask any skinhead. It doesn't even guarantee a majority feel that way, it just means they'll agree in polite (PC) conversation.... and polls. The truth is in their actions.
Its contrary to our western nature and is very unlikely for a western society to change to a society that will minimalize class. I am not a pro-classless society anyways, I am just against the extremity of the class society we have now.
It's contrary to human nature, there was always chiefs and shamans in every society.
@ Orthodoc
If I say on this quite politically minded board that I am a Marxist, there will be an assumption that I am referring to Marx's revolutionary programme of change, in which he both favoured, and predicted as inevitable, a workers' revolution which would create a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' as a temporary stage en route from capitalism to classless society.
If I were to say the same thing to a politically minded person from Britain, France, or Germany, they would most likely assume I was referring to 'modern marxism', a school of thought which underpins European socialist theory and, to an extent, practice.
If, however, I said I was a Communist, they may assume that I lean towards, or directly support classical Marxism, or (even more likely) orthodox Marxism.
The world now is, in many ways, a very different place to the one Marx, and the many other Communists of the 18th Century, inhabited. Revolution was in the air. It was talked of, written about and plotted for in towns and cities across the continent. The gulf that had become so apparent between the employer class and the working class, continued to widen and discontent was gathering pace.
Marx was a very clever man, but he lived in the time that he lived and however much he may have thought he could predict the future, he had no Crystal ball either.
But his analysis of how capitalism functioned and related to the social conditions of the day had merit. The same analysis can be applied to the modern world, but it won't paint an 18th century picture.
marx's problem begins with the BS that anyone has a right to the fruits of my labor other than me and my family.
You throw "equality" around like it's the be all, end all, to every social ill. There has never been equality in anything, and I don't think it's achievable or in most cases desirable. What we should be striving for is trying to eliminate stumbling blocks for people to advance their personal achievement, but if the kid has an IQ of 75 he's not going to Harvard, no matter what tools we give him.
I do not want equality in everything and never implied it, I just want to get rid of the stumbling blocks as well. I do not want the guy with the 75 IQ to go to Harvard, I want the everyone with a potential 175 IQ to have an equal chance to show that they can go to Harvard.
Give every kid a solid basic education in the 3-Rs, then in High School provide different paths to choose from that will prepare them to make their way in the world. There is no equality and no system that's not hierarchical. If you chose to live in a society, rather than Ted Kazinski's cabin, then you have to deal with it, like everyone else. But, unlike the commie states, you still have the free choice of the cabin.
I agree with this. I never wanted equality in every aspect if there was a misunderstanding there.
Biologically, there is even less equality than politically.
Thats what I was saying the whole time...
No, the guy that shot the dear shared it with the others, but he still got the best cut. That's the way it's always been, commensurate reward for value. It doesn't matter that 12 other hunters worked just as hard, if they didn't produce results.
He got the best cut, but the other people didn't go hungry either.
Not unless the people want it, and I don't hear much clamor except from a few idealists.
Thats why I don't think a leftist government is possible right now and would never fight for one either.
Your right, a manager that takes on the responsibility and accepts the same compensation as the workers, has no class.
No class? That shows that he would have a lot of class, the word you are looking for is fool.
No, not society's value of skill and effort. Society doesn't determine jack shit. It's the boss, the owner, of the business that determines the value of skill and effort, and determines the compensation, not society.
Ok, thats still not a direct representation of skill and effort then. A manager still does not work 50 times harder or is 50 times more skilled even if he or she thinks so.
What the fuck are you talking about? You said whites and blacks "were told to be equal". I presumed you were talking about the civil rights movement and federal court rulings/legislation. They were not told to be equal, they were told not to fuck with each other.
So giving blacks the right to vote is telling them "not to fuck with each other"?
You're dreaming. "Socially accepted" is a bullshit term that means nothing, except politically correct. It's politically correct to say that whites and blacks should have the same rights, but that doesn't mean everyone feels that way... ask any skinhead. It doesn't even guarantee a majority feel that way, it just means they'll agree in polite (PC) conversation.... and polls. The truth is in their actions.
Ok, your right on that but the point I am trying to get at is that racism has gone down since every generation is being raised in a society that is less and less racist.
It's contrary to human nature, there was always chiefs and shamans in every society.
I am not denying that, I am talking about how much power the chiefs and shamans should have over the population. And just because there is a leader doesn't mean there is a class difference.
So giving blacks the right to vote is telling them "not to fuck with each other"?
The civil rights movement didn't give blacks the right to vote, which already existed, it told whites to stop interfering with the blacks right to vote. It also told whites (and blacks) not to interfere with anybody's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Keeping in mind all the laws in the world won't make it happen, on an individual basis, just punish people who persist. The only thing that makes it happen in a non-institutional environment, is personal contact building respect, like you said.
So then if we were able to offer every kid the same highschool education and loan opportunities for college, that would be perfect equality. Equal opportunity, then it's up to the individual to use it.
manager still does not work 50 times harder or is 50 times more skilled even if he or she thinks so.
That's not important, if his labor is 50x more valuable to the success of the company then 1 worker, then he deserves 50x the pay in order to retain him.
Do you honestly think that there are enough individuals who are willing to work and sacrifice more then others for the same pay to fill all spots that would demand that? How do you rationalize telling that person he needs to travel 2 weekends a month when his buddies get to picnic with their families during that same time? How do you convince him to take on responsibilities that could cost him his job if something goes wrong, and how do you compensate him for his extra dedication to the company? A pat on the back and a 'good job, keep it up'?
Also, you are mixing two ideas which are anathema to each other. You say that the reward system would be based on additional respect and prestige. Then you say that all employees must be considered equally valuable. The self-esteem police have rampant power even in our current society, think of what they would be like under your system. I'd bet my life that under your rules anyone asking for additional respect or prestige as their reward would be torn apart as 'classist'. It already happens in socialist systems, just as the canadian doctor in here.
Cicero, it seems to me like your posts are 10% motivated by your encounter with the monday morning guy, and 90% motivated by recent, serious upheavals in your life. I certainly don't want to poo-poo any crises you're having, but it sounds like we should be talking this over in the health forum or whichever is most appropriate. There's waaaay more personal undercurrent then political opinion showing itself in your writing.
So then if we were able to offer every kid the same highschool education and loan opportunities for college, that would be perfect equality. Equal opportunity, then it's up to the individual to use it.
Agreed.
That's not important, if his labor is 50x more valuable to the success of the company then 1 worker, then he deserves 50x the pay in order to retain him.
If the other workers weren't there, would the company still prosper? He may be more difficult to replace than other workers and therefore more money is paid to retain him, but in order for the company to prosper it needs people to do all the necessary jobs. A wristwatch may have more expensive components than the battery, but if it that £1.50 battery goes flat the watch stops working. The battery is as important (more so?) than the gold strap holding the watch onto your wrist.
That's not important, if his labor is 50x more valuable to the success of the company then 1 worker, then he deserves 50x the pay in order to retain him.
And how do you actually know that a manager's labor is 50 times more valuable than an worker's?
Do you honestly think that there are enough individuals who are willing to work and sacrifice more then others for the same pay to fill all spots that would demand that? How do you rationalize telling that person he needs to travel 2 weekends a month when his buddies get to picnic with their families during that same time? How do you convince him to take on responsibilities that could cost him his job if something goes wrong, and how do you compensate him for his extra dedication to the company? A pat on the back and a 'good job, keep it up'?
Once again, I do not agree with equal pay, I am just against the extremities. And to answer your question, those are the reasons why I don't think you can make a switch from a right-winged society to a left-winged one. If a left-winged society is going to succeed, a new system of rewards would have to be in place and I have no idea what they are or if they are even possible, I just know that our current way of living isn't the only way.
How do you convince him to take on responsibilities that could cost him his job if something goes wrong
You say that like only a manger is at risk at losing their job if something goes wrong. Shit rolls downhill.
Also, you are mixing two ideas which are anathema to each other. You say that the reward system would be based on additional respect and prestige. Then you say that all employees must be considered equally valuable. The self-esteem police have rampant power even in our current society, think of what they would be like under your system. I'd bet my life that under your rules anyone asking for additional respect or prestige as their reward would be torn apart as 'classist'. It already happens in socialist systems, just as the canadian doctor in here.
Do you purposely put words in my mouth or are you really that bad at reading comprehension? I have said numerous times that I am not a communist and I am not looking for a classless society. I am only defending some of their views because I have felt they haven't been proven wrong yet.
And how do you actually know that a manager's labor is 50 times more valuable than an worker's?
You and I don't have to, we aren't paying him. That's the concern of his employer, not ours.
I'm not so sure. Reagan's "wellfare queen" was an early example of the right wing noise machine, and I suspect that the stories of women having babies to increase their checks have been similarly overblown.
No, they aren't.
Admittedly, my crack ho with the 9 babies doesn't get an increase in her check because of them ... since she's not a fit parent and doesn't have custody of any of her kids, but I'm still paying for each of those kids, and will probably see them on a regular basis when they are older.
To answer your question, I don't have a problem with charity groups. I support a few myself. There is a huge difference between a charity group that I can voluntarily give my time and money to, and the government that takes my money with no promise of efficiency.
....
I accept your apology [/Stephen Colbert] :D
...Could it be that entry-level jobs don't give enough of an improved quality of life, over welfare subsustence, to make it worth getting a job? I've read where people get a job, and have a lower standard of living than when they were on welfare. When employed, they have to pay for health insurance, childcare, transportation, maybe better clothing, etc. Perhaps the increase in minimum wage will widen this gap....
...
Yes, that's exactly the problem. Damn little incentive to risk giving it up.
And it's the people making gobs of money at the top end that are taking away the ability to increase wages at the bottom end. There is a limited amount of wealth in the system - what goes to one person is no longer available to go to someone else.
England saw the inevitable result of drastic forced distribution of wealth when the supertax was in place. Those who had previously earned more either left the country or stopped earning. ...
I've heard this argument before, and I don't think it's valid. When someone "stops earning" his "production" doesn't just dissappear. Someone else, who wants to earn has the opportunity to fill the "production hole" and make money for themselves. The one who "stopped earning" has to do something with his wealth. Even if he just puts it in the bank, the bank can use it to fuel the economy.
....
When the efforts became organized, for economies of scale, barter was no longer practical, so money was used to keep track of individual efforts. That paycheck is the reward for your effort to survive, which is as natural as it comes.There never has been, there is not now and there never will be, a classless society.
It is impossible to have a "society" without organization, and organization needs leadership, so that the pigs will always be more equal than others.....
But how much more equal?
You have to understand what money is, how and why people get it, as well as why people want it. Stop thinking of money as something that justs exists and should be divided up. Realize it's a representation of, a reward for, skill and effort.....
The richest people in the country
typically get their wealth, or the start of their wealth, from family. It isn't a reward for *their* skill and effort, it's handed to them on a silver spoon.
...No, the guy that shot the dear shared it with the others, but he still got the best cut. That's the way it's always been, commensurate reward for value. It doesn't matter that 12 other hunters worked just as hard, if they didn't produce results. ...
You've asked who determines "need" and "ability". Who determines "comensurate reward"? The best cut is one thing. In our society, the guy who shot the deer gets the meat, and throws the gnawed bones and knuckles to the rest of the team.
The richest people in the country typically get their wealth, or the start of their wealth, from family. It isn't a reward for *their* skill and effort, it's handed to them on a silver spoon.
And if they too are not at least moderately skilled and motivated, they lose it again very quickly.
Admittedly, my crack ho with the 9 babies doesn't get an increase in her check because of them ... since she's not a fit parent and doesn't have custody of any of her kids,
Well, there you go. Sounds like a prostitute who spends her money on drugs instead of birth control, not a welfare queen.
When the government tried to help, they created several generations of welfare dependant groups, that gave up working and just squirted out babies to increase their monthly stipend. A tremendous disservice to those people.
Yes. By giving them just enough to get by, but not enough to get out, they perpetuated the ghettos.
I'm not so sure. Reagan's "wellfare queen" was an early example of the right wing noise machine, and I suspect that the stories of women having babies to increase their checks have been similarly overblown.
Welfare these days is quite different than it was before Clinton. When Clinton was president he inacted the 'welfare reform bill'
Welfare had a term limit on it. Welfare recipients HAD to look for work after a certain amount of time. They got help with child care and transportation.
Welfare these days is actually hard to get and for any smart person not worth the hassle.
Welfare reform
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_reformwere those the same wonderful clinton reforms that had people all upset at the horrible, heartless GOP for screwing over teh underprivileged?
at the end of the day what i hear is a lot of whining and bitching because some people think it is unfair that "the rich people" have more money than the rest of us. quit your bitching and get on your life. if you think wealth redistribution is such a marvelous idea, get off your ass, do what it takes to create wealth (versus confiscating it) and then decide if you feel like redistributing it at the government's whim. As for me, I will work hard to achieve my goals and create some small measure of wealth for me and my family. and i will try my hardest to not give uncle sam one penny more than i have absolutely have to. and i will continue to fund charities and help those around me the best i can.
...at the end of the day what i hear is a lot of whining and bitching because some people think it is unfair that "the rich people" have more money than the rest of us. quit your bitching and get on your life. if you think wealth redistribution is such a marvelous idea, get off your ass, do what it takes to create wealth (versus confiscating it) and then decide if you feel like redistributing it at the government's whim. As for me, I will work hard to achieve my goals and create some small measure of wealth for me and my family. and i will try my hardest to not give uncle sam one penny more than i have absolutely have to. and i will continue to fund charities and help those around me the best i can.
Funny, I hear a lot of whining and bitching because some people are sooo selfish that they think it is unfair that they are responsible to help finance the running of the country and the care for those most in need.
The bottom line is this - if individuals were doing a good enough job caring for those in need, the government would not have to provide for them at all. So, just like communism, your idea has failed.
I work hard, I pay my taxes without cheating, I donate to causes that I think are worthy, when I can. I am not so selfish that I will keep it all for me and my family.
I donate to causes that I think are worthy, when I can.
And when is that? How have you determined what you can afford? I bet you live in a
way nicer house than those in need. Why haven't you sold it and purchased two very modest homes, one for you and one for someone in need?
And when is that? How have you determined what you can afford? I bet you live in a way nicer house than those in need. Why haven't you sold it and purchased two very modest homes, one for you and one for someone in need?
Nice try.
It's not a try, Spexx, it's a genuine question. If you can afford X amount to give to charities, but you think that the government should be taking more of everyone's money for assistance programs, then your extra money is going to come from somewhere. Either you're going to give less than you currently do to charity, or you're going to have to downsize in some other way. Are you willing to downsize? Or is your answer that only the very rich should have more money taken from them, and by your definition you are not very rich?
And it's the people making gobs of money at the top end that are taking away the ability to increase wages at the bottom end. There is a limited amount of wealth in the system - what goes to one person is no longer available to go to someone else.
If they didn't get it, the owner (stockholders) would. The owner determines how much the top end people, as well as the peons, are paid. I don't think the CEO is worth
365 times what I am, but the owner doesn't feel that way.
But how much more equal?
Whatever they determine, because they are calling the shots
The richest people in the country typically get their wealth, or the start of their wealth, from family. It isn't a reward for *their* skill and effort, it's handed to them on a silver spoon.
That has nothing to do with the fact that a paycheck is a reward for skill and effort. The people you are talking about don't get paychecks.
You've asked who determines "need" and "ability". Who determines "comensurate reward"?
The one paying it... he determines what it's worth to him.
...you think that the government should be taking more of everyone's money for assistance programs, ...
I don't.
Welfare these days is quite different than it was before Clinton. When Clinton was president he inacted the 'welfare reform bill'
Welfare had a term limit on it. Welfare recipients HAD to look for work after a certain amount of time. They got help with child care and transportation.
Welfare these days is actually hard to get and for any smart person not worth the hassle.
Welfare reform
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_reform
That doesn't change the fact that;
When the government tried to help, they created several generations of welfare dependant groups, that gave up working and just squirted out babies to increase their monthly stipend. A tremendous disservice to those people.
Yes, they have changed the system, because they started to realize they had really fucked up in the past.
Then what
do you think, Spexx?
In our society, the guy who shot the deer gets the meat, and throws the gnawed bones and knuckles to the rest of the team.
You obviously don't think the system is working. What is your plan to fix it, if not additional taxes for government assistance programs?
If they didn't get it, the owner (stockholders) would. ....
And I'm saying there would be less need for charities and "government programs" if more of that went to the front line, lower paid employees, who are generating the income, and can't afford stocks. If you pay bottom-rung employees more, there would be more incentive to get off welfare - you said as much, yourself.
Then what do you think, Spexx?
You obviously don't think the system is working. What is your plan to fix it, if not additional taxes for government assistance programs?
The rich folks should not keep as much. They can pay their employees more, improve the employees working conditions, hire more employees, lower the price of their product/service, improve its value without raising the price, etc. Any of these things would help to get people off of welfare, or no longer need the help of charities.
I agree, but the owners of the company don't. The only way to make them is the government, or unions. I chose unions.
I agree, but the owners of the company don't. The only way to make them is the government, or unions. I chose unions.
That surprises me.
I agree, but the owners of the company don't. The only way to make them is the government, or unions. I chose unions.
Good choice. Beyond instituting minimum wage legislation, safety at work, protection from unfair practices and finding a tax balance the electorate as a whole is prepared to accept, there's not much a government can do to force greater equity within the private sectors. Even those things are only things governments tend to push because unions are pushing them.
The rich folks should not keep as much.
Or is your answer that only the very rich should have more money taken from them, and by your definition you are not very rich?
So I guess the difference that you're not-so-clearly implying is that "the rich" should do this voluntarily?
Now, what is your line for "rich?" Who is rich, and who is not?
The bottom line is this - if individuals were doing a good enough job caring for those in need, the government would not have to provide for them at all. So, just like communism, your idea has failed.
define a "good enoughjob caring for those in need". Who's standard of living are we trying to get them to? yours? mine? a CEO's?
you just don't get it. just handing more money to people on the bottom of the payscale doesn't increase their position relative to the CEO, all it does is increase things across the board. If the broom pushing janitor (who is important but generally less skilled) suddenly gets a pay raise to $20 hour (@$42,000/year) you'll feel good because now they can get a nicer car or a better tv, or whatever it is they set their priority as. But wait, the guy who assembles the machine says "back the Eff up." If he is worth $20, I'm now worth $45, and if you don't give it to me, i go on strike." So he gets it. Now he's happy because he has more disposeable income and you're happy because 2 people on the lower end of the payscale are making more. Except the engineer that designs the machine says, "BS! if the schmoe who assembles my ideas gets $45, I'm worth $80 or I quit." So he gets it. Now he's happy because he makes more money and he can pay off his last student loan. Uh oh, our government hasn't gotten rid of the alternative minimum tax so now he owes more to uncle sam... so now he isn't happy again. But you're ecstatic because 2 lower payscale individuals are making more money, and one midscale is making more and the awesome part is that now Uncle Sam gets to sift more of that poor sucker's money through the system to help "the poor". Happy day. Except the plant manager says "oh hell no, if my designer gets $80/hour, i get $150... and so on and so on.
See this process is called inflation. For a very brief period of time the people on the bottom are elevated in relation to the people at the top, but it is temporary, soon everyone is just elevated compared to their old positions but you'll have to start campaigning for the people at the bottom again, because they are just as far behind the people at the top as they ever were.
someone was talking about the importance of the worker vs the manager vs the exec. you're right, the product can't be produced and the company can't prosper if a cog is missing at any step. But you completely miss the point that if a company needs to hire a janitor all they need to do is find someone who can hold a broom. Just about anyone can do that. If they need an assembler there are a few less people who can do that. If they need a designer there is a limited pool of qualified people available. If they need a plant manager the pool of talent becomes distinctly smaller. If they need a CEO there is a very very small pool of available talent. It is the simple law of supply and demand. The CEO (the commodity) is in limited supply so he is worth far more than the guy who can be replaced by anyone with a pulse. That's life.
So I guess the difference that you're not-so-clearly implying is that "the rich" should do this voluntarily?
Absolutely.
Now, what is your line for "rich?" Who is rich, and who is not?
You know what it is, why should I have to tell you? Do you want me to tell what nice is? Ethical? Everybody knows these things. When you reach that point, you have a choice - be a glutton or a team player.
I agree, but the owners of the company don't. The only way to make them is the government, or unions. I chose unions.
Funny I was just talking about this recently.
Yes, the two ways to get an increase in wage, working conditions, etc are either by unions or government regulations and unfortunately, by choosing one, you will hurt your power of the other.
It is much easier to choose government regulations to get a raise than it is for unions but by choosing government, you are hurting unions by giving the unions less power since you are less dependent on them. Then you end up becoming too dependent on government regulations and you become a statistic and at the mercy of people that truly do not represent you.
If you choose unions, you are only helping the people that work at your company or are members of your union while people that can not get into unions are screwed. It is also much harder and take longer to get a raise in a union so the amount of work is against you in a union.
I would much rather choose unions because I believe in giving people power instead of the government but unions are very weak in the United States and sometimes you have to go to government to get change even if it will hurt the unions.
Cicero, it seems to me like your posts are 10% motivated by your encounter with the monday morning guy, and 90% motivated by recent, serious upheavals in your life. I certainly don't want to poo-poo any crises you're having, but it sounds like we should be talking this over in the health forum or whichever is most appropriate. There's waaaay more personal undercurrent then political opinion showing itself in your writing.
What do we need to talk about in the health forum exactly? My motivations? Is class warfare not political?
....See this process is called inflation. For a very brief period of time the people on the bottom are elevated in relation to the people at the top, but it is temporary, soon everyone is just elevated compared to their old positions but you'll have to start campaigning for the people at the bottom again, because they are just as far behind the people at the top as they ever were.
....
Only if the top keeps moving up. If they decide they have enough, what happens? In the mean time, the economy will be very healthy with all those cars (or widgets) the bottom-rung employees will be buying.
You know what it is, why should I have to tell you? Do you want me to tell what nice is? Ethical? Everybody knows these things. When you reach that point, you have a choice - be a glutton or a team player.
have you ever actually met a wealthy individual? i'm not talking about the paris hilton type, but the kind that probably lives in your neighborhood. I spend a good portion of my time with the entry level wealthy (it's my job) and I can tell you that people you would villify as wealthy don't think of themselves as wealthy. in fact, they continue to work hard and accumulate more because they are afraid they haven't worked hard enough to survive retirement yet. what defines a glutton? someone with $10 more than you? $10,000? $1,000,000?
Wait forget all that. Serious question here. Where in your scale does a person who makes $60,000 per year fall? Are they one of the righteous poor or one of the villainous wealthy?
have you ever actually met a wealthy individual? i'm not talking about the paris hilton type, but the kind that probably lives in your neighborhood. I spend a good portion of my time with the entry level wealthy (it's my job) and I can tell you that people you would villify as wealthy don't think of themselves as wealthy. in fact, they continue to work hard and accumulate more because they are afraid they haven't worked hard enough to survive retirement yet. what defines a glutton? someone with $10 more than you? $10,000? $1,000,000?
Wait forget all that. Serious question here. Where in your scale does a person who makes $60,000 per year fall? Are they one of the righteous poor or one of the villainous wealthy?
Have I villified anyone?
If they decide they have enough, what happens?
define "enough".
Have I villified anyone?
well, the scorn you heap upon those with more than you feel is "enough" seems to mark them as black moustachioed villains in your mind. but if i remove the word "villainous" from it, can you answer the question?
Wait forget all that. Serious question here. Where in your scale does a person who makes $60,000 per year fall? Are they one of the righteous poor or one of the villainous wealthy?
Neither, surely. They aren't poor (righteous or otherwise) but nor are they the owners of vast wealth and power. The people I personally would wish to see paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes, are those whose income levels match those of a small town or city.
ok, put a number to it. don't be vague.
(i'll leave the question of why they should have to pay a higher percentage in taxes than you do for another thread)
Funny I was just talking about this recently.
Yes, the two ways to get an increase in wage, working conditions, etc are either by unions or government regulations and unfortunately, by choosing one, you will hurt your power of the other.
That's not true, actually they go hand in hand.
The government raising minimum wage, only helps those at the very bottom and are covered by the minimum wage law. The union works for better wages for those above minimum wage as well. The government passes work safety rules that they don't have the manpower to enforce. Unions help force the company to abide by the laws and go further to institute safe/ergonomic practices, that the laws can't foresee. The government passes anti-discrimination laws but the unions see that all the people doing the same job, are paid equally. Etc, etc, etc...
Yes, I know that some unions have abused their power, and discriminated against minorities. But there are laws governing unions too. Anyone mistreated can sue and/or go to the government and file a complaint, against the union as well as the company. The union and the government are the same, in that the people make it as good or bad as they want it to be.
That's not true, actually they go hand in hand.
The government raising minimum wage, only helps those at the very bottom and are covered by the minimum wage law. The union works for better wages for those above minimum wage as well. The government passes work safety rules that they don't have the manpower to enforce. Unions help force the company to abide by the laws and go further to institute safe/ergonomic practices, that the laws can't foresee. The government passes anti-discrimination laws but the unions see that all the people doing the same job, are paid equally. Etc, etc, etc...
I'd go along with that to an extent. But there are also times, I think, when Unions and Government are in an adversarial relationship. Also, much of that legislation is arrived at by government in part because of pressure from the more powerful unions. At least that has usually been the case in the UK. It's tended to be the Unions who've agitated most strongly for minimum wage and employment rights.
That doesn't change the fact that; Yes, they have changed the system, because they started to realize they had really fucked up in the past.
Yes true. The system gave too much money away to people who used the system to do nothing. A learned helplessness?
You know what it is, why should I have to tell you? Do you want me to tell what nice is? Ethical? Everybody knows these things.
But
that's just it. I guaran-fucking-tee you I could find thousands of people just in my city alone who would point to you and call you rich, gluttonous, and selfish with the ridiculous amount of wealth you have. Everybody does
not agree on these things.
It's funny that so many want to cripple those who run and give 95% to the charities they state they like and want around so much.
If they get their way NONE of these charities will exist.
have you ever actually met a wealthy individual?
Yes
i'm not talking about the paris hilton type, but the kind that probably lives in your neighborhood.
Yes
I spend a good portion of my time with the entry level wealthy (it's my job) and I can tell you that people you would villify as wealthy don't think of themselves as wealthy.
Ok. MRMV. I deal with people every day that have some wealth and think that it gives them all kinds of entitlements.
in fact, they continue to work hard and accumulate more because they are afraid they haven't worked hard enough to survive retirement yet.
Generality. You really shouldn't lump people together like that. I'll accept that have heard that. I think there are aother reasons, as well.
what defines a glutton?
Technically "1 a : one given habitually to greedy and voracious eating and drinking". I use the term to include wealth.
someone with $10 more than you? $10,000? $1,000,000?
I'm not going to quantify what's enough. Just like you know when your belly is full, you know when you have enough.
Wait forget all that. Serious question here. Where in your scale does a person who makes $60,000 per year fall?
Right between $59,999.99 and $60,000.01. ;)
Are they one of the righteous poor or one of the villainous wealthy?
People who have enough and continue to accumulate wealth are part of the reason there's as much poverty as there is. They are part of the reason that welfare rolls are as high as they are, and part of the reason your taxes are high. They are also part of the reason that America's middle class is disappearing.
But that's just it. I guaran-fucking-tee you I could find thousands of people just in my city alone who would point to you and call you rich, gluttonous, and selfish with the ridiculous amount of wealth you have. Everybody does not agree on these things.
I didn't say everybody agrees. I said
you know when you have enough.
Forgive me if I have you confused with someone else, but I think I remember that you, CF, and Lookout have defended Christianity. Think about loving your neighbor as you love yourself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Is there any consistency between these philosophies and your philosophy concerning wealth?
define "enough"...
Enough is enough.
A child only needs enough money to buy a piece of candy. A young man only needs enough money for a tank of gas and a bottle of whiskey. Then, he knocks up a girl, and now he needs enough money to buy a house; enough money to raise a child. Then he needs enough money to put that kid through college. Then he needs enough money to pay for his kid's wedding. Then he needs enough money to retire comfortably.
All along the way, he has strived to earn more and more money, to meet his increasing responsibilities. He has learned to be prepared for emergencies, and always have some savings set aside. There is no static amount that constitutes "enough" money.
If wolves were clawing at your door, how many bullets would you feel are "enough" to protect your family?
I don't know. Are they werewolves?
I deal with people every day that have some wealth and think that it gives them all kinds of entitlements
the fact that you follow this with:
Generality. You really shouldn't lump people together like that. I'll accept that have heard that. I think there are aother reasons, as well.
is pretty humorous. I make a statement about the wealthy people i work with and you call it a generality. Mind you that my job is to ask all the really personal pertinent questions about money, goals, and motivations. But you say you deal with wealthy people and they feel like they are entitled to something. sounds like a generalization to me. maybe even a little hypocritical.
But more importantly it doesn't change the fact that you have established some level of "enough" and anyone who sets themselves to the task of accumulating more than that is deemed to be a glutton. But you can't be pinned down to actually define what "enough" is.
You sound like the sniveling little kid in the corner who is angry that someone has nicer shoes than him. The kid with the nicer shoes must be a self centered asshole or he wouldn't have nicer shoes than you.
Right between $59,999.99 and $60,000.01.
cute. another person who is either too arrogant or too afraid to answer someone else's question.
People who have enough and continue to accumulate wealth are part of the reason there's as much poverty as there is.
How exactly do you figure that? If a homebuilder builds enough homes in the first 5 months of the year to pay his bills, what should he do for the other 7 months? Shut down the business and go home, he wouldn't want to be gluttonous after all. Screw the guys who he provides jobs for, Mr Homebuilder has "enough". Or should he just give all of the profits to the employees? That seems reasonable. He'll continue taking all the risks of being in business and just give anything over "enough" to the employees.
They are part of the reason that welfare rolls are as high as they are, and part of the reason your taxes are high.
BS. Companies that grow add jobs, they also tend to reward those people at the top with more than "enough". That's the way it works. Make profit, reap reward. Companies who quit growing soon have to start cutting jobs.
They are also part of the reason that America's middle class is disappearing.
wow. have you thought of running for office? you've got the rhetoric and the buzz words. now can you tell me what it means? How do you define the middle class? is it an annual income amount? is it a certain number of toys quotient? what is it?
answer a question with something quantifiable please.
Forgive me if I have you confused with someone else, but I think I remember that you, CF, and Lookout have defended Christianity. Think about loving your neighbor as you love yourself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Is there any consistency between these philosophies and your philosophy concerning wealth?
Yes, there is exact consistency. Because my philosophy concerning
my wealth is completely separate from my philosophy concerning
other people's decisions and lives. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is
not the same as "Make sure everyone else follows your rules too."
People who have enough and continue to accumulate wealth are part of the reason there's as much poverty as there is.
How exactly do you figure that?
This is the
zero-sum pie slicing theory which says that if you have a bigger slice of the pie, it indicates that somebody else has a smaller piece. If you have a large slice you should give some of yours back, so that smaller-sliced people can have a slice closer to your size.
It is a broken way of looking at economics. Almost nothing in economics is "zero sum". If you look at it on a national scale, clearly and obviously the American pie of 1907 is tiny and the pie of 2007 is huge. This is due to the creation of wealth that happens when innovations, education, productivity and dynamism multiply upon themselves.
(I had to use the term "American pie". Sorry, there was no alternative.)
A free market does not guarantee people equal sizes of the pie. But it does seem to be the best guarantor of a pie that increases in size... until the poor people of 2007 live nearly as well as the moderately rich people of 1907.
zero sum only works in a world where nothing is created or subtracted. In the market, not even commodities fit the bill there. The closest is real estate, but they've tested the boundaries with that even.
One time my brother was bashing Americans for eating big, gluttonous meals, while others in the world are starving. We happened to be eating out at the time, having just finished a big expensive meal (that my greedy, weath-accumulating dad was able to pay for).
Somebody asked my brother "Didn't you just eat a big, gluttonous meal?!" ...and he replied, self-righteously, "Well, I could have just had a salad."
He could have, but he didn't. It's easy to say that other people should have something taken from them, but nobody wants to give up their stuff.
Enough is enough.
Until something happens.
the fact that you follow this with:
is pretty humorous. I make a statement about the wealthy people i work with and you call it a generality.
I thought we were trading generalities. Good enough for the goose...
Mind you that my job is to ask all the really personal pertinent questions about money, goals, and motivations. But you say you deal with wealthy people and they feel like they are entitled to something. sounds like a generalization to me. maybe even a little hypocritical.
Sure is a generalization. Sure is as valid as your observation. Sure isn't hypocritical.
But more importantly it doesn't change the fact that you have established some level of "enough" and anyone who sets themselves to the task of accumulating more than that is deemed to be a glutton. But you can't be pinned down to actually define what "enough" is.
You know what enough is.
You sound like the sniveling little kid in the corner who is angry that someone has nicer shoes than him. The kid with the nicer shoes must be a self centered asshole or he wouldn't have nicer shoes than you.
Here we go with the insults. So I'll respond that you sound like the 3 year old brat who won't share his toys with his sister, even though he's not using them. "They're mine, mine, mine, mine, mine, mine, mine" ad infinitum.
cute. another person who is either too arrogant or too afraid to answer someone else's question.
I answered the question. Let me try again: you know what enough is.
How exactly do you figure that? If a homebuilder builds enough homes in the first 5 months of the year to pay his bills, what should he do for the other 7 months? Shut down the business and go home, he wouldn't want to be gluttonous after all. Screw the guys who he provides jobs for, Mr Homebuilder has "enough". Or should he just give all of the profits to the employees? That seems reasonable. He'll continue taking all the risks of being in business and just give anything over "enough" to the employees.
Is that how you define enough?
People who have enough and continue to accumulate wealth are part of the reason there's as much poverty as there is.
BS. Companies that grow add jobs, they also tend to reward those people at the top with more than "enough". That's the way it works. Make profit, reap reward. Companies who quit growing soon have to start cutting jobs.
When the top guys keep more than enough, there is less to go around for everybody else.
wow. have you thought of running for office? you've got the rhetoric and the buzz words. now can you tell me what it means? How do you define the middle class? is it an annual income amount? is it a certain number of toys quotient? what is it?
Since you don't want to contribute any of your precious loot to help others, what happens to them? Do they starve? Die from lack of nutrition/healthcare? Can you sleep at night knowing you contributed to their demise? Would you treat your parents that way? How much would you have to make before you would part with a penny? $1,000,000? $10,000,000? $100,000,000?
Your can't see the forest for the questions.
answer a question with something quantifiable please.
Ok. You know what enough is.
Yes, there is exact consistency. Because my philosophy concerning my wealth is completely separate from my philosophy concerning other people's decisions and lives. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is not the same as "Make sure everyone else follows your rules too."
You really get all hot and bothered when someone suggests you give something, don't you.
You're kidding yourself if you think Christianity is consistent with capitalism.
Ok. You know what enough is.
And you will be ok with it if you disagree with what he decides, right?
This is the zero-sum pie slicing theory which says that if you have a bigger slice of the pie, it indicates that somebody else has a smaller piece. If you have a large slice you should give some of yours back, so that smaller-sliced people can have a slice closer to your size....
Simplified illustration:
A - Your company generates $1,000,000 in sales. As Bruce said, the CEO decides who is worth what amount and who gets how much. He keeps $500,000 for himself. He pays each of his 3 executive vice presidents $100,000. That leaves $200,000 to split among the 50 front-line revenue-generating employees.
B - Your company generates $1,000,000 in sales. As Bruce said, the CEO decides who is worth what amount and who gets how much. He keeps $100,000 for himself. He pays each of his 3 executive vice presidents $50,000. That leaves $750,000 to split among the 50 front-line revenue-generating employees.
A free market does not guarantee people equal sizes of the pie. But it does seem to be the best guarantor of a pie that increases in size... until the poor people of 2007 live nearly as well as the moderately rich people of 1907.
I don't think I've said "equal", have I?
Eventually, if the disparity between rich and poor continues to increase, the climate will be similar to 1917 Russia and 1789 France.
UT, do you disagree that
People who have enough and continue to accumulate wealth are part of the reason there's as much poverty as there is. They are part of the reason that welfare rolls are as high as they are, and part of the reason your taxes are high. They are also part of the reason that America's middle class is disappearing.
And you will be ok with it if you disagree with what he decides, right?
You don't think Lookout will do the right thing?
You don't think Lookout will do the right thing?
I agree with him, so I'm not the worried one.
And you will be ok with it if you disagree with what he decides, right?
I can no more make someone be generous than I can make them be nice.
We are not talking about you making anyone do anything.
Spexx, your simplified illustration doesn't work in economics, because it only exists in a bubble, which is never *ever* the case in the real world. This is like physics teachers who simplify by saying "OK, if we don't have any gravity, we have no mass, and also we don't have any friction, NOW how would the items collide?" We could describe how the items would collide, but then put them back in a real world situation and they don't collide that way at all,... and in economics the real world is unavoidable.
I DO disagree, entirely, that "People who have enough and continue to accumulate wealth are part of the reason there's as much poverty as there is." No, to suggest that shows a weak understanding of economics. (And that's not an insult. 99% of people don't understand economics.)
It is almost impossible to accumulate wealth without generating wealth. It is wealth generation that makes an economy powerful, to grow it so the rising tide lifts all boats. It is a faster and better road out of poverty to raise the standard of living so that the poor are in effect richer.
If you reinvest money into a venture, it is creating things. If you invest the money in the market, it is being used by other people to create things. Even if you put money into a simple index fund, that money is in turn being used in the market, in scores of ways that are invisible to the layman. This creation is what builds our modern society. And if you take money out of the economy and put it under a mattress? That would lower prices.
Believe me, or take Econ 101.
Yup. I've said as much in many ways.
Money makes money for others. Without the rich there would be no middle class, min. wage or charity.
You really get all hot and bothered when someone suggests you give something, don't you.
You're kidding yourself if you think Christianity is consistent with capitalism.
Not hot and bothered in the slightest. I definitely do not fall into your category of "CEO" wealthy (since that seems to be your other synonym for "enough,") so you haven't actually suggested that I give anything to begin with. I give what I can to several different charities, just like you do. The difference between us is that I don't look at anyone else and try to determine if
they've given enough or not.
And frankly, you've shown yourself to be quite ignorant of Christianity in the past, so I think I'll stick with my own interpretations of how it fits in with capitalism.
....If you reinvest money into a venture, it is creating things. If you invest the money in the market, it is being used by other people to create things. Even if you put money into a simple index fund, that money is in turn being used in the market, in scores of ways that are invisible to the layman. This creation is what builds our modern society. And if you take money out of the economy and put it under a mattress? That would lower prices.
Believe me, or take Econ 101.
It was a long time ago, but I had good grades in two semesters of economics.
I don't dispute what you've said, above. I would offer that it doesn't matter whether one wealthy person does these things, or many less wealthy do them. One person can invest or spend $100,000, or 1000 people can invest or spend $100 each - the results will be the same.
...
And frankly, you've shown yourself to be quite ignorant of Christianity ...
How so?
Well, most recently, in the discussion about tithing and the economics of individual churches.
Additionally, a quick archive search of your posts including the word "Christian" will show you that almost every single post that isn't a denigrating joke (and don't think I'm complaining about the jokes, they're often funny) is bitching about how other people aren't behaving in a Christian manner. You do a lot of that, which is ironic.
I don't dispute what you've said, above. I would offer that it doesn't matter whether one wealthy person does these things, or many less wealthy do them. One person can invest or spend $100,000, or 1000 people can invest or spend $100 each - the results will be the same.
That's true, but irrelevant to the subpoint. You're so attached to your original incorrect point that you're giving up the subpoint. Cool, let's return to your original point.
We're still at our impasse, the mystical CEO who pays his/her people twice, or something, of what the market will bear. Bear in mind that the CEO does not set his/her own salary, the board typically does that. Now, this mystical CEO -- let's say it's a he, and he's running a supermarket chain. He could set the price of a can of peas to $5.00. Why doesn't he do that? He'd sure make a lot more money for salaries.
wow, i never thought i would look forward to discussing anything with DLM until i tried to discuss something with spexxvet. At least tw is man enough to just walk away and ignore the questions rather than pretend he has answered the question in some cute intellectually lazy manner.
until spexx can come up with something more quantifiable than his warm fuzzy "you know" answers i'm done here. too bad, could have been an interesting discussion.
might i suggest calling him a communist sperm burper?
... And frankly, you've shown yourself to be quite ignorant of Christianity ...
Well, most recently, in the discussion about tithing and the economics of individual churches.
Additionally, a quick archive search of your posts including the word "Christian" will show you that almost every single post that isn't a denigrating joke (and don't think I'm complaining about the jokes, they're often funny) is bitching about how other people aren't behaving in a Christian manner. You do a lot of that, which is ironic.
None of that illustrates an ignorance of Christianity, which is what you've said. I wouldn't be able denigrate, joke, or criticize, if I weren't knowledgeable about Christianity, would I?
BTW, my experience with church "collections" is absolute truth. Are you insinuating that I'm llying?
That's true, but irrelevant to the subpoint. You're so attached to your original incorrect point that you're giving up the subpoint. Cool, let's return to your original point.
We're still at our impasse, the mystical CEO who pays his/her people twice, or something, of what the market will bear. Bear in mind that the CEO does not set his/her own salary, the board typically does that. Now, this mystical CEO -- let's say it's a he, and he's running a supermarket chain. He could set the price of a can of peas to $5.00. Why doesn't he do that? He'd sure make a lot more money for salaries.
Let's call him "the owner", so that we can say he has total power over his compnay. He could raise the price of peas. On the other hand, he
could be satisfied with keeping 25% or 50% of his possible take. What's so wrong about making $100,000, if it means that you'll get better performance and loyalty from your employees, or sell more units, or whatever?
This is like the board game Risk. Have you ever played? Let's say you control Noth America. You could put 20 armies each on Greenland, Alaska, and Mexico, and 1 army on each of the other countries, or you could put 10 armies on Greenland, Alaska, and Mexico, and 2-4 armies on the rest of the coutries. Which makes for a more secure continent?
A child only needs enough money to buy a piece of candy. A young man only needs enough money for a tank of gas and a bottle of whiskey. Then, he knocks up a girl, and now he needs enough money to buy a house; enough money to raise a child. Then he needs enough money to put that kid through college. Then he needs enough money to pay for his kid's wedding. Then he needs enough money to retire comfortably.
All along the way, he has strived to earn more and more money, to meet his increasing responsibilities. He has learned to be prepared for emergencies, and always have some savings set aside. There is no static amount that constitutes "enough" money.
If wolves were clawing at your door, how many bullets would you feel are "enough" to protect your family?
wow, i never thought i would look forward to discussing anything with DLM until i tried to discuss something with spexxvet. At least tw is man enough to just walk away and ignore the questions rather than pretend he has answered the question in some cute intellectually lazy manner.
until spexx can come up with something more quantifiable than his warm fuzzy "you know" answers i'm done here. too bad, could have been an interesting discussion.
As Flint said, there is no "one number". I'm sorry that you can't conceptualize it the way he has. And no matter what number I put out there, it won't be the right one as far as you're concerned. Then it will become a straw man. All of which means one thing: I won.;)
Speaking only for myself - I will not accept, over my entire lifetime, any more than $10,000,000, adjusted for inflation. That would represent an income, from all sources, of $200,000 /year, for a work-life of 50 years.YMMV
Right -- the owner could raise the price of a can of peas to $5
What happens if he does that?
Right -- the owner could raise the price of a can of peas to $5
What happens if he does that?
That's what happens now - you get inflation. I'm talking about a whole new way of behaving. One where greed and selfishness take a back seat to what best for the whole - economy, nation, world, species - whatever. I'm not saying that that the owner has to give up all his income, he just needs to accept somewhat less, so that others can have somewhat more. You may say that it'll never happen, that people are naturally self-interested, and won't give up any of their loot (Clod and Lookout are fighting pretty hard). Maybe I'm naive, but I see this as a win/win solution to the problem of the shrinking middle class, the welfare system, and the high taxes resulting from the welfare system. "The owner" can continue with the status quo, and continue the system of "government extortion", and the bitching that goes with it, or he can embrace an entirely new mindset, where his voluntary actions change the system.
Annecdote: My father-in-law owned a plumbing business. He compensted his employees at a higher level than he needed to. He took care of hs guys. He could have paid them as little as he could, and replace them when they got fed up and left. He could have closed up shop, if a union was voted in, and opened up down the street under a different name, without the union. He could have allowed a union to come in, and charged his customers more. But he chose to put less in his pocket.
This is like splitting atoms huh?
[COLOR="White"]*thinking and wondering if I should add the dunce emoticon so people know I am joking*
* or it could be to let them know I am too duncy to get it*[/COLOR]
I guess your A's were in macroeconomics. We're talking micro, here. Let's reduce it down to just you. If you are shopping for groceries, and you want peas, and you see a can of peas for $5, do you buy it?
Let's reduce it down to just you. If you are shopping for groceries, and you want peas, and you see a can of peas for $5, do you buy it?
.......maybe if they were really, really, nice peas?
I guess your A's were in macroeconomics. We're talking micro, here. Let's reduce it down to just you. If you are shopping for groceries, and you want peas, and you see a can of peas for $5, do you buy it?
I know it's not my question but I don't believe buying expensive peas causes inflation because there is someone selling peas for less. If I buy the cheaper peas this might make the other seller reduce prices to be able to compete.
The whole premise behind supply and demand.
Does buying an expensive product set an inflation rate? I don't think so.
However.
I noticed that sugar took a price hike. I assumed it was the cost of fuel to ship it inland. I think the same supply and demand rule applys making the people producing a product look for ways to pass savings onto the consumer.
sorry if I interupted .......maybe if they were really, really, nice peas?
:biglaugha
Annecdote: My father-in-law owned a plumbing business. He compensted his employees at a higher level than he needed to. He took care of hs guys. He could have paid them as little as he could, and replace them when they got fed up and left. He could have closed up shop, if a union was voted in, and opened up down the street under a different name, without the union. He could have allowed a union to come in, and charged his customers more. But he chose to put less in his pocket.
And here's the point you're missing: your father-in-law did that so that he could retain the
best employees for
his business. If everyone did that, there would be no incentive for those employees to stay with your father-in-law, and the definition of "being taken care of" would have to change.
sorry if I interupted
Not at all, Sky, we will need you to answer the questions if spexx completely whiffs.
I guess your A's were in macroeconomics. We're talking micro, here. Let's reduce it down to just you. If you are shopping for groceries, and you want peas, and you see a can of peas for $5, do you buy it?
No.
And here's the point you're missing: your father-in-law did that so that he could retain the best employees for his business. If everyone did that, there would be no incentive for those employees to stay with your father-in-law, and the definition of "being taken care of" would have to change.
Here's the point your missing: his employees stayed with him, he had a long-lasting, successful business, was content with the amount of income he kept, and his employees were content with the amount if income they earned.
Right -- the owner could raise the price of a can of peas to $5
What happens if he does that?
No.
But my point is that the owner doesn't have to raise the price - he can accept less in his own pocket.
All of which means one thing: I won.
If your definition of winning is to avoid any real substantive discussion until others give up and walk away... yep, you win.
Here's the point your missing: his employees stayed with him, he had a long-lasting, successful business, was content with the amount of income he kept, and his employees were content with the amount if income they earned.
No, I completely get that. Everyone in this situation was happy--the employees were paid better than the market rate, and the employer had better-than-average employees. On the other hand, if the shop down the street had started offering the same thing, then some of your father-in-law's good employees may have left. And if all the shops in the state did the same thing, then the market rate for those employees would have simply been raised, and your father-in-law would have been left with average employees. He would find himself having to pay them even
more to retain the good employees.
But why don't you just ask him? Ask him if he would want all of his competitors to take extra good care of their employees like he did. Your example is in fact only another piece of evidence that
individuals can and should make a difference to those around them, because widespread systemic rules are ineffective and counterproductive.
it's always so easy for those who have not to demand those that have to just 'accept less'
to each according to his need from each according to his ability?
If this was a prevalent practice, spexx, no one would bother going into business for themselves. I've never met anyone who is 'content' with their income. but don't take my word for it....
let's poll the audience...
But why don't you just ask him?....
'cause he's dead.
Shit, they guy 's dead. That means Spexx "wins" by default. JEERS to Clodfobble.
Jim, thanks for contributing ina constructive manner.
it's always so easy for those who have not to demand those that have to just 'accept less'
I'm not asking anyone to accept less if they don't have enough. Don't you think there's a point where you will have enough? If you reach that point, will you just keep accumulating wealth? The little I know of you tells me that when you get enough, you'll retire and spend your life playing guitar and following Bob Weir's tour.
to each according to his need from each according to his ability?
No. When you have enough, let others have some of what you could choose to accumulate.
If this was a prevalent practice, spexx, no one would bother going into business for themselves.
That doesn't make any sense to me. You have a choice of working at a job, and not making enough, or going into business for yourself, and making enough, and you would choose to not make enough?
I've never met anyone who is 'content' with their income. ...
I have.
Jim, thanks for contributing ina constructive manner.
did you just thank me for contributing in a constructive manner?
No. When you have enough, let others have some of what you could choose to accumulate.
so ....you mean like...if you are 60 yrs old, and have had a very successful business for the last 30 years....you have $100 mil in liquid assets, plus 4 or 5 homes, and your family is provided for for the next 4 or 5 generations even if they all just hang around by the pool? Then you should give your income away? to who? you?
Nobody sane would buy $5 peas, so the grocer can't do that.
What if the grocer sets the price of a can of peas to 30 cents, drastically undercutting the 50-70 cent grocers?
Is this too patronizing?
What if the grocer sets the price of a can of peas to 30 cents, drastically undercutting the 50-70 cent grocers?
You get the birth of Wal-Mart.
Originally Posted by lookout123 
You sound like the sniveling little kid in the corner who is angry that someone has nicer shoes than him. The kid with the nicer shoes must be a self centered asshole or he wouldn't have nicer shoes than you.
Here we go with the insults. So I'll respond that you sound like the 3 year old brat who won't share his toys with his sister, even though he's not using them. "They're mine, mine, mine, mine, mine, mine, mine" ad infinitum.
this kind of thing is what frustrates people about arguing with people like you. you perceive that lookout is name-calling, and yet...cannot be outdone in that respect. you have to say nanny nanny boo boo back. I guess it seems somehow to lack ...integrity....to chide him about insults and then turn around and do the exact same thing. Like 'he started it, mom!'
in the same vein, instead of judging clodfobble and lookout about not giving up what they have cheerfully, you could let someone who
needs it more live in your nice house that's in
one of the top 10 places in the country to live. and then say ...this is what i do. lead us by example since you have the answers. they seem to come to you so easily, after all.
you speak to people like you're schooling them on how to be. and all the while, we all know you're a dork like the rest of us.
so ....you mean like...if you are 60 yrs old, and have had a very successful business for the last 30 years....you have $100 mil in liquid assets, plus 4 or 5 homes, and your family is provided for for the next 4 or 5 generations even if they all just hang around by the pool? Then you should give your income away? to who? you?
If you feel that that you have enough, you don't have to give it away, just stop accumulating more.
fire everyone, and close your businesses?
you lose
this kind of thing is what frustrates people about arguing with people like you. you perceive that lookout is name-calling, and yet...cannot be outdone in that respect. you have to say nanny nanny boo boo back. I guess it seems somehow to lack ...integrity....to chide him about insults and then turn around and do the exact same thing. Like 'he started it, mom!'
I'd prefer to have a civil debate, but if Lookout insults me, what should I do? Take it like a pussy? Is that what you'd do? No, that's not me.
in the same vein, instead of judging clodfobble and lookout about not giving up what they have cheerfully,
I have not judged them and I haven't said anything about giving up what they have, cheerfully or not.
you could let someone who needs it more live in your nice house that's in one of the top 10 places in the country to live. and then say ...this is what i do. lead us by example since you have the answers. they seem to come to you so easily, after all.
When I have enough, I will.
you speak to people like you're schooling them on how to be. and all the while, we all know you're a dork like the rest of us.
Why thank you. Whale cocks unite!
Nobody sane would buy $5 peas, so the grocer can't do that.
What if the grocer sets the price of a can of peas to 30 cents, drastically undercutting the 50-70 cent grocers?
He'll sell more peas.
Is this too patronizing?
Respectfully, you
could get to the point.
fire everyone, and close your businesses?
you lose
Turn your business over to your child? Sell it? Work for free, because you love the job and want to keep your people employed? Work and give the money to charity? Think outside the box, LJ.
Alright. The secret is, the people he hires are in the same marketplace that the peas are. As much as we hate to think this is true, it's simply fact.
These decisions are not really made by the CEO. As much as the CEO wants to charge $5 per can - because he'll make $4.55 per can - there is no grocer in the world charging that. As much as he wants to sell the cans for 30 cents - because he'll sell more - the decision is not up to him, because at that price point it actually costs the grocer 15 cents per can. He can run it as a special to show off a low price... but only for a while.
The owner has the ability to take a smaller chunk. But so does every single other owner, and so the owner faces the same problem in pricing himself as his faces in pricing the peas.
He especially faces it when pricing labor. In the grocery business, labor costs are the bulk of the costs, aside from the price of goods sold. So as much as he wants to, if he pays $20/hour for checkers, he will go out of business because he won't have any money left. If he chooses to give smaller salaries to management, he'll get worse managers because his competition will get the good managers. His managers will leave to work for the competition. If he chooses to bring in inferior goods to take a bigger chunk per item sold, he'll lose business to quality.
One grocer can't change this system. All 100 grocers in the area might be able to - until some other chain comes to the area and runs it back. All 10,000 grocers in the country may be able to - until an alternative to grocers comes around. If there is a big gap between prices and cost of goods sold, you can bet that it will. Because the business has a built-in profit margin in the single digits, smaller than the average businesses out there. The rules of the market are clearly defined.
You can say that the market for CEOs is confused, that the CEOs make too much because boards don't understand that more people can do that job than the 1000 people vying for Fortune 500 company CEO positions. The boards don't agree with you.
You can say that the market for business owners is confused because too many owners take too much out of their businesses. But starting most businesses, especially those with employees, requires a buy-in of six figures and a rather complete understanding of the market and the profession. You can say, well people should be better owners, and on that we agree. But that problem doesn't lie in the rather forced economic revisionism you seem to espouse. Force labor and wage changes and you will just find the same owners making stupider decisions.
....He especially faces it when pricing labor. In the grocery business, labor costs are the bulk of the costs, aside from the price of goods sold. So as much as he wants to, if he pays $20/hour for checkers, he will go out of business because he won't have any money left. If he chooses to give smaller salaries to management, he'll get worse managers because his competition will get the good managers. His managers will leave to work for the competition. If he chooses to bring in inferior goods to take a bigger chunk per item sold, he'll lose business to quality.
...
You can say that the market for CEOs is confused, that the CEOs make too much because boards don't understand that more people can do that job than the 1000 people vying for Fortune 500 company CEO positions. The boards don't agree with you.
You can say that the market for business owners is confused because too many owners take too much out of their businesses. But starting most businesses, especially those with employees, requires a buy-in of six figures and a rather complete understanding of the market and the profession. You can say, well people should be better owners, and on that we agree. But that problem doesn't lie in the rather forced economic revisionism you seem to espouse. Force labor and wage changes and you will just find the same owners making stupider decisions.
What I'm saying is that when, or if you prefer "if" the CEO, the managers, even the cashiers have enough, they should stop accumulating wealth. My guess is that nobody in your explanation feels that they have enough. There will be planty of people who never have enough.
spex, you are intellectually dishonest. arguing with you is pointless. you are slipperier than a greased politician.
the concept of someone 'stopping the accumulation of their wealth' is asinine. you might as well ask Lions to eat grass.
Communism doesnt work. Eventually the entitled's needs overwhelm the ability of the enabled to provide for it, and it crashes.
Survival of the fittest works...in nature and in business.
spex, you are intellectually dishonest. arguing with you is pointless. you are slipperier than a greased politician.
I'm not intellectually dishonest. I'm not going to roll over when I know that I am right. You may see that as pointless, I see it as overcoming objections. Nobody has yet given a good reason to continue to accumulate wealthy when you have enough. You say it'll never happen, but not why it's not a great idea.
the concept of someone 'stopping the accumulation of their wealth' is asinine. you might as well ask Lions to eat grass.
Or humans to stop following the herds, picking nuts and berries, and to settle down and plant some crops, maybe domesticate a few animals....
Communism doesnt work. Eventually the entitled's needs overwhelm the ability of the enabled to provide for it, and it crashes.
I'm not talking about communism.
Survival of the fittest works...in nature and in business.
Who said anything about survival of the fittest? I prefer Darwin's philosophy - survival of the species.
What I'm saying is that when, or if you prefer "if" the CEO, the managers, even the cashiers have enough, they should stop accumulating wealth. My guess is that nobody in your explanation feels that they have enough. There will be planty of people who never have enough.
That's what you're saying NOW, not what you were arguing in #181, which is what my posts lead back to and what I'm talking about.
I'm not intellectually dishonest.
yes...you are. you argue to win an argument, slipping this way and that, disregarding points that crush your argument just so you can continue to argue until you finally wear the adversary down in frustration and find some way to claim that 'you won'
I'm not going to roll over when I know that I am right. You may see that as pointless, I see it as overcoming objections. Nobody has yet given a good reason to continue to accumulate wealthy when you have enough.
you just ignored rage then? go back. check. see my previous comment in this reply.
You say it'll never happen, but not why it's not a great idea.
it's not a great idea
because it will never happen...Logistically, the person is either 1.continuing in business and giving his money away, or 2. closing up shop, or 3.selling it to someone else and 1. communism 2. causing the loss of employment and income for all those below him/her 3. accumuating more wealth thru the profit of the sale.
I'm not talking about communism.
i think you are.
Who said anything about survival of the fittest? I prefer Darwin's philosophy - survival of the species.
i did. just a few minutes ago. and....you're a communist.
That's what you're saying NOW, not what you were arguing in #181, which is what my posts lead back to and what I'm talking about.
In #181, I gave an illustration to justify my point that if a CEO or owner accepts less, poverty and welfare can be reduced. How is that substantially different than what I just said?
This is worse than the time I got stuck defending my
Plane on a Treadmill position; which I think finally settled on:
...there is no correct answer because the question is worded wrong...
Boy, that was embarrassing![COLOR="White"]. . . [/COLOR]
ha ha haIn #181, I gave an illustration to justify my point that if a CEO or owner accepts less, poverty and welfare can be reduced. How is that substantially different than what I just said?
#181 talked about the CEO changing the wage structure. Now you're talking about everyone accepting less. I guess we went off track when the peas were too patronizing...
...that "intellectually dishonest" label applies here as well.
And one of the more visible economic phenomena of communism is poorer and stupider business decisions anyway. Just about every good or service in the Soviet Union is on record as having had that happen.
You guys need to read up on Communism. I'm saying that people who have enough should voluntarily stop accumulating more. Did I say the government should be involved?
Gosh. In this deeply fractured society, it is now an option to believe that the other side is not just incorrect, not just wrong, not even just stupid, but actually broken.
….
To that list I guess we have to add
..."intellectually dishonest" … as well.
I’ve been pretty consistent throughout.
And it's the people making gobs of money at the top end
I’ll be more specific and change that to “have enough”
that are taking away the ability to increase wages at the bottom end. There is a limited amount of wealth in the system - what goes to one person is no longer available to go to someone else.
I’ll stand by that.
The bottom line is this - if individuals were doing a good enough job caring for those in need, the government would not have to provide for them at all. So, just like communism, your idea has failed.
…
And I'm saying there would be less need for charities and "government programs" if more of that went to the front line, lower paid employees, who are generating the income, and can't afford stocks. If you pay bottom-rung employees more, there would be more incentive to get off welfare - you said as much, yourself.
So take it up with Bruce, too.
The rich folks should not keep as much.
Once they have enough.
They can pay their employees more, improve the employees working conditions, hire more employees, lower the price of their product/service, improve its value without raising the price, etc. Any of these things would help to get people off of welfare, or no longer need the help of charities.
They can even give to charities, creating jobs for the charities. Maybe the charity can train people on the welfare rolls, and those folks can then get jobs. What a concept!
Simplified illustration:
A - Your company generates $1,000,000 in sales. As Bruce said, the CEO decides who is worth what amount and who gets how much. He keeps $500,000 for himself. He pays each of his 3 executive vice presidents $100,000. That leaves $200,000 to split among the 50 front-line revenue-generating employees.
B - Your company generates $1,000,000 in sales. As Bruce said, the CEO decides who is worth what amount and who gets how much. He keeps $100,000 for himself. He pays each of his 3 executive vice presidents $50,000. That leaves $750,000 to split among the 50 front-line revenue-generating employees.
…
Eventually, if the disparity between rich and poor continues to increase, the climate will be similar to 1917 Russia and 1789 France.
…
Let's call him "the owner", so that we can say he has total power over his compnay. He could raise the price of peas. On the other hand, he could be satisfied with keeping 25% or 50% of his possible take. What's so wrong about making $100,000, if it means that you'll get better performance and loyalty from your employees, or sell more units, or whatever?
This is like the board game Risk. Have you ever played? Let's say you control Noth America. You could put 20 armies each on Greenland, Alaska, and Mexico, and 1 army on each of the other countries, or you could put 10 armies on Greenland, Alaska, and Mexico, and 2-4 armies on the rest of the coutries. Which makes for a more secure continent?
That's what happens now - you get inflation. I'm talking about a whole new way of behaving. One where greed and selfishness take a back seat to what best for the whole - economy, nation, world, species - whatever. I'm not saying that that the owner has to give up all his income, he just needs to accept somewhat less, so that others can have somewhat more. You may say that it'll never happen, that people are naturally self-interested, and won't give up any of their loot (Clod and Lookout are fighting pretty hard). Maybe I'm naive, but I see this as a win/win solution to the problem of the shrinking middle class, the welfare system, and the high taxes resulting from the welfare system. "The owner" can continue with the status quo, and continue the system of "government extortion", and the bitching that goes with it, or he can embrace an entirely new mindset, where his voluntary actions change the system.
Annecdote: My father-in-law owned a plumbing business. He compensted his employees at a higher level than he needed to. He took care of hs guys. He could have paid them as little as he could, and replace them when they got fed up and left. He could have closed up shop, if a union was voted in, and opened up down the street under a different name, without the union. He could have allowed a union to come in, and charged his customers more. But he chose to put less in his pocket.
…
I'm not asking anyone to accept less if they don't have enough. Don't you think there's a point where you will have enough? If you reach that point, will you just keep accumulating wealth? The little I know of you tells me that when you get enough, you'll retire and spend your life playing guitar and following Bob Weir's tour.
No. When you have enough, let others have some of what you could choose to accumulate.
That doesn't make any sense to me. You have a choice of working at a job, and not making enough, or going into business for yourself, and making enough, and you would choose to not make enough?
...
Turn your business over to your child? Sell it? Work for free, because you love the job and want to keep your people employed? Work and give the money to charity? Think outside the box, LJ.
What I'm saying is that when, or if you prefer "if" the CEO, the managers, even the cashiers have enough, they should stop accumulating wealth. My guess is that nobody in your explanation feels that they have enough. There will be planty of people who never have enough.
In #181, I gave an illustration to justify my point that if a CEO or owner accepts less, poverty and welfare can be reduced. How is that substantially different than what I just said?
#181 talked about the CEO changing the wage structure. Now you're talking about everyone accepting less. I guess we went off track when the peas were too patronizing...….
I think you’re being nit-picky here, UT.
I threw out a bunch of options. Are you trying to say that my theory is incorrect because you think there’s an inconsistency between “CEO changing the pay structure” and “everyone accepting less” (which would, in fact, be a change in pay structure – think union give-backs)????
Sounds like a straw man argument.
I threw out a bunch of options. Are you trying to say that my theory is incorrect because you think there’s an inconsistency between “CEO changing the pay structure” and “everyone accepting less” (which would, in fact, be a change in pay structure – think union give-backs)????
There is a very fucking huge and very fucking obvious difference between a "CEO changing a pay structure" and "everyone accepting less";
What I was trying to walk you through was why the CEO can't necessarily change the structure the way you posted in #181, just like he can't change the price of a can of peas, because market forces regulate everything;
And by the way, if you want to go anecdotal, I'm speaking as a former business owner whose business failed quickly, largely because I paid too highly for people;
It would have done me more good, and the world more good, if I'd figured out how to build my business without overpaying them;
And it would have been better for them not to have temporarily high-paying employment followed by sudden failure;
Because I could only pay those people for about a year before I experienced total business collapse and utter personal financial ruin.
There is a very fucking huge and very fucking obvious difference between a "CEO changing a pay structure" and "everyone accepting less";
What I was trying to walk you through was why the CEO can't necessarily change the structure the way you posted in #181, just like he can't change the price of a can of peas, because market forces regulate everything;
Ok, you win. A fucking CEO can't
necessarily change the fucking structure the way I fucking posted in #181. But sometimes, he can, right?
...
Because I could only pay those people for about a year before I experienced total business collapse and utter personal financial ruin.
I'm sorry to hear about your misfortune.
Originally Posted by Spexxvet
I'm not talking about communism.
.
i think you are.
No, really he isn't. That's not what communism is about.
I think the point in his hypothetical is that the whole economy pays more for unskilled workers (or at least underskilled), not just one business. This kind of artificial wage increase might destabilize things on short term, but long term there's no reason to think it wouldn't bolster the economy even more than giving rich folks more money (though it should be pointed out that it would give a steroid injection to the manufactured goods side of our economy, and not much of anything to the service side).
Spexxvet, details aside, I think you've got the right idea. Of course it helps the economy to allow competition, but why must the competitors be so bloodthirsty all the damned time? There's more than one way to help out the economic state.
Why can't we take a step back and realize when so much is plenty? That the money for my 12th car could just as well be spent on someone else's 1st? <southernhickvoice> My poppa always said if you aren't acting out of love, you shouldn't act at all. </southernhickvoice>
Jesu le Criste, man, it all depends on what the business calls for. If you're running a traditional grocery store, then no, you really have no opportunity to raise your checkers' salary by 50%, because there's no advantage, your profit margin is near zero, and the additional costs mean the competition will ream the living shit out of you. The only way you can raise salaries is if you trick people into paying more for their cans of peas.
Costco, on the other hand, redefined checker pay by changing the entire model of what they do. Part of their game was tricking people into buying much larger cans of peas than they need, confusing people's usual price comparison. But there you have it.
At new types of grocery stores, such as Trader Joes and Whole Foods, the market is deciding -- just as you say -- that it prefers a different style of checker pay, and doesn't mind paying double for peas to get it.
But ironically, the people you are trying to help reject the Trader Joes/Whole Foods model, and buy their groceries at the big supermarkets. Why: they pay half for a can of peas.
...you sped right past my point. I said his hypothetical (that being the key word, because this would never happen without someone pointing a gun a Joe Americanbusinessowner's head) was that everyone raised the wages at the same time, be it in small increments (wiser) or all at once (hello 2nd depression). It no longer becomes an issue of competition.
And besides this whole idea is based on giving up most of your excess, not more than what you have to give. It's about trickle up (if that were possible) instead of trickle down (what a load of horse shit that was). Of course, this is still in hypothetical (even parenthetical... (I gotta lay off these)), because you're right there ARE companies with very small profit margins, and their employees would suffer because they can't afford a big pay hike.
Which is why ((I)) support socialism!! :D
It's really hard to understand, but... their lifestyles won't change if we
do make their salaries more equitable.
Just giving people more
money doesn't work, you have to give them more
wealth, more purchasing power.
A famous economics study looked at a small system in a prison, where cigarettes were used as money. Let's say the price of a new pair of shoes was 200 cigarettes.
Overnight, a new supply of cigarettes came into the prison. Suddenly twice as many cigarettes were available. Was the result that every prisoner could now afford two pairs of shoes? No! The result was that the price of shoes doubled to 400 cigarettes.
The increase in money supply does not produce, magically, more goods and services to become available. It just changes the price of what is being bought.
One place to see how this principle works is in the price of college. For the last few decades, more and more money has gone to gummint grants and cheap loans -- to help the people who are worse off, so they can afford to go to college. But what has happened, at the same time, is that college tuition has risen at more than twice the rate of inflation... making it less and less available.
Excellent post on this phenomenon
If more money is made available for a thing, the price of that thing increases. You can't fight this; it is a very powerful force doing what it does best.
Now you can argue, well, the
inequity is a larger social problem than the lack of purchasing power of the poor. But what you're really doing is arguing for a less efficient economic system. Which will not really help the poor,
in the long run.
I understand that, I have (as you advised others) taken econ 101. The point is, if the entire top crust gives up their excess wealth and uses it to pay the middle to lower crust, there is no freshly printed money or anything, they're actually giving the lower class more wealth at the expense of themselves.
And the idea that it's a less efficient system is something that is hotly debated. Would you rather have the majority of the purchasing power in the upper, middle or lower class? It used to be largely in the middle class, but it's crept higher and higher until now <distribution of wealth blah blah blah, we've all heard it>.
My personal opinion, and that of a fair share of economists, is that having such a overbalance of wealth in the hands of the enormously wealthy makes the economy unstable, in that it produces more service goods and fewer ACTUAL goods, which we outsource to other countries. While many debate whether a service or a physical product behave the same, I'm of an opinion they don't. SO, more wealth in the middle class equates to a more durable economy... IMHO.
If more money is made available for a thing, the price of that thing increases. You can't fight this; it is a very powerful force doing what it does best.
Monkey wrench. The Fed just dropped interest rates by 0.5%. Now more money is made available to the economy. Therefore the prices of everything will only increase? How does throwing more money in the economy make more wealth? After all, the Fed is supposedly lowering interest rates only to stave off recession - the manufacturing of fewer goods. OK you Econ 101 experts. Explain that one.
hmmm.. maybe the
[youtube]WGoi1MSGu64&mode[/youtube]
I’ve been pretty consistent throughout.
That in itself is no argument for your intellectual honesty, though. Tw is also pretty consistent throughout, and no one accords that dealer in half-truths a reputation for integrity.
I’ll be more specific and change that to “have enough[.]”
This kind of economic argument is a nonstarter, though: no two people economically independent each of the other would likely have either quite agree with the other's assessment of what is enough for themselves, and they'd be reluctant to assess "enough" for the other party. A program intended to determine "enough" is merely stillborn -- everyone subject to it would recognize it as completely arbitrary and resent its inevitable strictures. Do it the way it's done now and be content.
...This kind of economic argument is a nonstarter, though: no two people economically independent each of the other would likely have either quite agree with the other's assessment of what is enough for themselves, and they'd be reluctant to assess "enough" for the other party. A program intended to determine "enough" is merely stillborn -- everyone subject to it would recognize it as completely arbitrary and resent its inevitable strictures. Do it the way it's done now and be content.
Your whole statement is a straw man argument. Stop insinuating that I've proposed ideas that I haven't. I've never said anything about someone telling you what is enough. Nor have I said anything about a "program". I've saidd that you know what enough wealth is, and when you reach enough, you should voluntarily stop accumulating
more wealth.
Your whole statement is a straw man argument. Stop insinuating that I've proposed ideas that I haven't. I've never said anything about someone telling you what is enough. Nor have I said anything about a "program".
The spirit behind Spexxvet’s post is too accurate. Greenspan in repeated interviews on his book tour, again repeats what he considers America's two greatest threats. 1) An education system that is not graduating sufficiently educated students. 2) An increasing disparity of wealth - the concentration of too much wealth among too few people. Last time this happened, America then ended up in the Great Depression. With too much money concentrated among too few, then the economy did not have liquidity necessary for growth. A major depression resulted much later.
Whereas the top man once made 14 times more money than his average employee, today, that number is in the hundreds - approaching 1000 times more money. There is no justification for that disparity. The free market system broke down when top management salaries has no relationship to free market forces. An elite simply bids up each other's salaries with no regard to value.
Ironically, the most poorly run companies were paying most for their top executives. Nardelli of Home Depot is a perfect example. Nardelli was running Home Depot slowly downward. Finally Home Depot paid him about $150 million just to leave. When do you get paid for being incompetent and fired?
Hey Griff- what's that? I'm not allowed to stream.
Dammit, that's the word I was looking for, liquidity. And I just heard it on the radio, too.
Hey Griff- what's that? I'm not allowed to stream.
The Conchords singing The Humans are dead. hmmm... seemed like a good idea when I did it....
This thread sucks...sorry I started it.
Whereas the top man once made 14 times more money than his average employee, today, that number is in the hundreds - approaching 1000 times more money. There is no justification for that disparity. The free market system broke down when top management salaries has no relationship to free market forces. An elite simply bids up each other's salaries with no regard to value.
The lastest number I've seen is
365.
If you look at the top executives in the Fortune 500 companies, they averaged $10.8 million in total compensation, which is 365 times the pay of the average American worker.
how is the CEO's pay relevant to what the average american's pay? the only relevant category to compare a CEO's pay with is the category filled with people that can step in and do the CEO's job.
FWIW, i agree that the pay disparity is obscene, but if a CEO can convince a board he is worth something, I don't blame the CEO for taking it.
how is the CEO's pay relevant to what the average american's pay? the only relevant category to compare a CEO's pay with is the category filled with people that can step in and do the CEO's job.
FWIW, i agree that the pay disparity is obscene, but if a CEO can convince a board he is worth something, I don't blame the CEO for taking it.
It's relevant in this way: the disparity is obscene.
Another relevance is that you can't run a successful business without both indians and chiefs.
Another relevance is that you can't run a successful business without both indians and chiefs.
true. but if i can replace an indian with someone off the street without a lot of fuss, then that indian is going to demand a much lower wage than the chief.
true. but if i can replace an indian with someone off the street without a lot of fuss, then that indian is going to demand a much lower wage than the chief.
But one three-hundred-sixty-fifth?
There is no justification for that disparity. The free market system broke down when top management salaries has no relationship to free market forces. An elite simply bids up each other's salaries with no regard to value.
I have to agree with tw here. The value is not in proportion to the compensation.
i agree with you, it isn't. but it doesn't have to be. if every grocery store raises the price of the product you need to make your favorite recipe to $20/can, you have two options. pay $20 for the can, regardless of what you think it is worth, or go without.
this is no different. if you can find someone well qualified for the top job that will work for less then hire them. if you can't, quit complaining that the market has decided they are worth that amount.
I really don't care what other people make. I can only figure out my own situation: if they pay me enough to do a job, I will do it; if they don't, I will not.
What the CEO gets paid is so much rumor to me. I don't care. I think he's a good one. The previous one, from what I hear, nearly killed the company. I'll go ahead and guess this one is worth more. I hope he is paid more. It's worth it if he improves the company.
As tw notes, he is responsible for 85% of any problem that comes up. So his actions and decisions will affect many more people than mine. In fact he has the ability to grow a $10M company (that's a guess) into a $20M company. If he can do that, I think he should be paid a great deal. Of course a smart board would do that with bonuses and would avoid an incentive package that grants the CEO any kind of golden parachute, unless he's hired specifically to manage a downcycle or something.
As tw notes, he is responsible for 85% of any problem that comes up. So his actions and decisions will affect many more people than mine.
One difference is that, if you fuck up you'll get fired. If he fucks up he'll get quietly shuftied off the scene with a golden handshake to keep him warm. Given how many lives his decisions affect, and the high rewards he is given for coping with that responsibility, he should be made to fully carry its weight: paying the price when his decisions were in error.
with a golden handshake to keep him warm
is that a step or down from a golden shower?
Depends on your particular predilections :P
Given how many lives his decisions affect, and the high rewards he is given for coping with that responsibility, he should be made to fully carry its weight: paying the price when his decisions were in error.
Do you feel the same way about doctors?
At all jobs I've ever worked, the CEO is just as likely to lose his/her job as I am. I've outlasted a few, actually.
One difference is that, if you fuck up you'll get fired. If he fucks up he'll get quietly shuftied off the scene with a golden handshake to keep him warm. Given how many lives his decisions affect, and the high rewards he is given for coping with that responsibility, he should be made to fully carry its weight: paying the price when his decisions were in error.
In the companies I've worked for, it has been the opposite. Regular employees are put on probation, demoted, moved to another department... but I've seen, let's see--three different CEO's get fired from various places, and in two cases I felt they were taking the hit for things that were partly, but not entirely, their fault.
shut up, everyone knows that 85% of all problems are directly traceable to the top.
Maybe it doesn't happen so much over there. There's a tendency in very large, very powerful companies/quangos over here, that if the guy at the top fucks up, he leaves with a very handsome bank balance.
Do you feel the same way about doctors?
Yes.
If a doctor makes a very bad error of judgment he can be reported to the medical association and if necessary struck off to prevent a repeat of a potentially deadly mistake. It's not easy to get a doctor struck off, they have to have made errors of judgement serious enough to suggest that they may endanger their patients if they continue to practise.
And this enormous weight of responsibility, surely it places a strain on this person, yes? Loss of time with the family, constant stress leading to health issues, and the knowledge that if any one part of a massive machine slips out of balance, the axe hanging over your head will drop, even if it wasn't even remotely your fault. But that's the job, to be omniscient, and to bear the responsibility for the whole organization (not just one project, one department, or one facility).
How much would you expect to be paid for that job? Would you even accept the job if it was offered to you? Could you do the job if you took it?
I used to know this guy who would yell at athletes on television, and claim that he could do a better job, if they paid him that much.
Or, they pass the buck and blame it on underlings.
You're right, a lot of people wouldn't want the job of CEO; those who are CEOs are not always there because they're so damn good at it, but rather they like (live for) the stress, the politics, the hours, the power, and don't mind a little poopin' on the underlings. Or having the underlings throw poo at you (behind your back of course.)
Or, they pass the buck and blame it on underlings.
You're right, a lot of people wouldn't want the job of CEO; those who are CEOs are not always there because they're so damn good at it, but rather they like (live for) the stress, the politics, the hours, the power, and don't mind a little poopin' on the underlings. Or having the underlings throw poo at you (behind your back of course.)
A good CEO does not blame others for mistakes he/she makes, but does hold them responsible for their actions as the relate to the duties assigned to him/her.
I report directly to the CEO at my company and he has always been fair. Actually, he is a pretty good mentor. He takes time to discuss with me why he makes some decisions he makes and how it will affect employees and the bottom line. I know that not
all CEOs are like him, but I feel certain he is not in the minority.
A good CEO does not blame others for mistakes he/she makes, but does hold them responsible for their actions as the relate to the duties assigned to him/her.
And now confront the term 'perspective'. A relation between you and the CEO, you are responsible for your responsibilities. A good CEO does little work. He defines a strategic objective and delegates the tasks - sometimes to you.
But to the rest of the world, that CEO is responsible for your screwups. After all, HE provided the necessary knowledge - ie the good mentor. He defined the strategic objective. His job is to make sure you have everything necessary so that you don't screw up. Why? Because his ass is on the line if you do screw up - and he cannot and must not be doing the work. Well that is what happens when a company is responsible and productive.
Notice the different perspectives of a same relationship between your and your boss.
The man who was responsible for everyone else - must provide the attitude and knowledge - must confirm that everyone has what is needed to perform the tasks - must define a strategic objective that can be accomplished (Deming's famous bead experiment); that top man is the CEO. So we once gave him 10 and 20 times more money for doing almost no work while providing direction - attitude and knowledge.
Having lost market share, diminishing stock price, and paid one of the highest salaries in the nation; what did Home Depot do to Nardelli? They gave him a $145million bonus. His starting salary was $123 in 2000. In those seven years, he did nothing to empower innovation; to improve the stores. But he did concentrate power in Atlanta. He lost significant market share to Lowes. The stock dropped from an average $60 per share to $32 per share. Company value dropped to half under Nardelli's rein. So what do we do? We give him a massive bonus? Well we (the stockholders) don't do that. We have no say.
Companies no longer have top management accountable to the owners. It has become a neat little club of Presidents also operating as Directors for other companies. A wink and a smile; and they run up each other's salaries. He destroyed half the value of Home Depot. So they gave him a $145million bonus. And some even here say that is good.
The boss is responsible for all while doing almost no work. The people who make that possible are the little people. Once that top man got 14 times more money than the average employee. The average employee made all that possible. All the boss had to do is make sure everyone knew their job. Now many top executives cannot even do that - and make 365 times more money?
The top man at GM could not even drive a car? Top men in the airlines had no grasp of what happened inside airliners or those support functions. Top executives at American steel companies never worked where the work gets done. Top executive at First Energy who created the NE blackout knew nothing about utilities, electricity, or company operations. In each case, they took record salaries and drove their companies down. Why are some of the highest top executive salaries in some of the poorest growth companies? Why do some here just know this is good? Even Greenspan is cautioning; this as one of the two greatest threats to the American economy.
The situation tw describes there is similar to the way things work in many of the larger companies/organisations in the UK.
I have no objection to the head of a company earning significantly more than the people s/he employs. I completely agree that they have a huge weight of responsibility and if that responsibility is a genuine one it must weigh heavily indeed. My problem lies with the fact that in several well documented instances (and one wonders how many not so well documented instances exist), the people who should have been bearing that weight and who were being paid hundreds of times more than their employees because of it, were not held to be responsible. Instead they were rewarded for their failure.
In some of these cases, the knock on effect of their incompetence was job losses amongst the workforce. People who did their jobs competantly and were paid an average wage lost their jobs because of the incompetance of the person in charge; whilst the person who'd caused their job loss and compromised the health of the entire organisation were rewarded with record bonuses. Bonuses that made the lifetime earnings of their employees look like pocket money.
And this enormous weight of responsibility, surely it places a strain on this person, yes? Loss of time with the family, constant stress leading to health issues, and the knowledge that if any one part of a massive machine slips out of balance, the axe hanging over your head will drop, even if it wasn't even remotely your fault. But that's the job, to be omniscient, and to bear the responsibility for the whole organization (not just one project, one department, or one facility).
Okay the size of the responsibility is greater. But, the level or work and expertise required to fulfil that responsibility is not necessarily as unique within the company as their role may be.
My dad was a maintenance electrician in a mid-size bakery for twenty-odd years. He was the chief electrician so it was his responsibility to make sure everything kept running. The maintenance crew did most of their overhauls and upkeep at night so Dad was primarily a night-worker (which impacted on family life). If there was a major breakdown the cost implications to Mellings were severe. Everything is on a smaller scale than the large companies we've been talking about, but it takes a lot less to sink a smaller company.
Dad didn't bear the whole responsibility for the company, but he bore full responsibility for keeping the company's factory running. If you think that wasn't high stress, think again. The amount of times Dad had to jerry-rig or invent some wild solution to keep production going when a machine broke and the right part wsn't available.
The CEO of a large company is responsible for the whole thing. He has to be omniscient...except that he doesn't. He has to be wholly responsible, but I doubt the CEO actually looks at individual stationery orders, he has other people to look and filter the relevant information through to him.
Dad was only looking after one factory of machines, ovens, timers and conveyers. But he had to be aware of every screw. The potential consequences to his little world if he screwed up, or got very unlucky, were just as great as the consequences to the CEO's much bigger world if he screws up or gets unlucky: production problems, logistic and financial consequences, the potential for destabilising a business which is operating within tight margins and ultimately, if the mistake was big enough and particularly badly timed, a need for cost-cutting exercises leading to job losses.
My Dad never earned above £20k.
I report directly to the CEO at my company and he has always been fair. Actually, he is a pretty good mentor. He takes time to discuss with me why he makes some decisions he makes and how it will affect employees and the bottom line. I know that not all CEOs are like him, but I feel certain he is not in the minority.
The CEO of a large company is responsible for the whole thing. He has to be omniscient...except that he doesn't. He has to be wholly responsible, but I doubt the CEO actually looks at individual stationery orders, he has other people to look and filter the relevant information through to him.
The CEO may be a great guy, but in most large companies/organizations, the majority of the employees have no contact with the CEO. In the layers of middle management, too often made up of idiots, the message from the top, as well as the information from the bottom, gets garbled.