You should play it - fantastic game. Not to keen on the sequel but the first one was new and exciting for me.Originally Posted by RandBlade
You should play it - fantastic game. Not to keen on the sequel but the first one was new and exciting for me.
Americans who make the choice to never commit major crimes are more likely to be rich then those who make that choice.
Americans who make the choice to save in retirement vehicles like 401(K) and IRAs have more wealth then those who don't.
To me its utterly simple. Everyone knows that poor choices lead to poor outcomes. And yet for some strange reason people don't make the next logical step of realizing that the majority of the people living in a poor outcome situation are there because of their own poor choices. Yes exceptions exist but for the most part what happens in life is what you make of it. The hard work people put in is rewarded - the slackers get less.
Are people raised in a climate of higher expectations more likely to make better choices? No shit. Environmental factors have a part to play. If poor people are poor because of their poor choices its far more likely they fail to educate their children on how to make proper choices in life. Does this create an insurmountable hurdle? No of course not - but I'm not suggesting (as your implying) that where you start in life has NO impact on your future results. It just might be a harder climb up but ultimately its still up to the individual's choices.
Obviously. It's your choice to view complicated, multi-factorial human issues in simple black-and-white terms. It's also your choice to believe simplistic solutions are the answer to pretty much everything, or ignore difficult questions that require more than a bumper-sticker slogan reply. But that's just easy punting, and lazy thinking on your part. Big fail. How ironic.
I'll keep pressing on this until you actually answer. I'll even give you specific "examples" to help you out.
1) Is providing healthcare to premature babies, infants with anomalies, or children with disease/illness -- regardless of their parents' ability to pay for that care -- considered a "cradle handout"?
2) Is food assistance that helps the working-poor continue to work (without becoming sick, malnourished, or homeless) a "handout"? What about job-training that can help them get out of working-poor status?
3) Is providing healthcare to the elderly (or those with untreated illness that moves them closer to their grave) -- regardless of their ability to pay for that care -- considered a "handout"?
4) Are federal subsidies to elementary schools, Universities, Community Colleges or Trade/Vocational Schools "handouts"? Is a federally-subsidized loan or grant for a college education a "handout"?
1. Yes. Not that I'm necessarily opposed to it but its by definition a handout.
2. Yes on both counts however job training is potentially a productive use of resources.
3. No. Not if they paid for medicare through payroll taxes (assuming a rough equivalent in taxes withdrawn and costs paid in aggregate doesn't have to be specific to one person).
4. Yes but like #2 its possible those funds are being used productively. *Possibly*
Just giving money away is bad. Funding a specific purpose (like job retraining) isn't nearly as bad because at least the person has to work to get it and society has some benefit.
Let me ask you this GGT. If someone is able but unwilling to work should government ensure he has food, shelter and medical care for life? Yes or no?
Even though the parents have paid taxes that fund gov't in general, or Medicaid in particular (#3)?
Or it's 'possibly' a productive use of funds (#4)?
Who decides what's 'productive' and who gets to use the resources (#4)?2. Yes on both counts however job training is potentially a productive use of resources.
So a single-payer gov't insurance program isn't a hand-out, as long as users pay some tax that funds the pool....good to know!3. No. Not if they paid for medicare through payroll taxes (assuming a rough equivalent in taxes withdrawn and costs paid in aggregate doesn't have to be specific to one person).
Circular.4. Yes but like #2 its possible those funds are being used productively. *Possibly*
Where are we "just giving money away"?Just giving money away is bad. Funding a specific purpose (like job retraining) isn't nearly as bad because at least the person has to work to get it and society has some benefit.I think you're under the impression our welfare system is operating on pre-90's policy, instead of the current welfare-to-work system. All public programs have a specific purpose that's meant to "benefit society". Food assistance included. They're public insurance programs...and you know insurance products aren't designed for individual contributions to equal individual pay-outs.
No. But you loaded the question up front with the word "unwilling". Seems you start with the premise that there are millions of able-bodied slackers and dead-beats who're unwilling -- and refusing -- to work. Or hunt for work. Or take any job they can. And they're somehow leaching off the system to get "free food, shelter and medical care FOR LIFE". Do you have some data to explain why/where you got this idea? Or how you've come to assign welfare FRAUD to ALL welfare recipients?Let me ask you this GGT. If someone is able but unwilling to work should government ensure he has food, shelter and medical care for life? Yes or no?
After you answer that, we can get deeper into the weeds....about what to do when able-bodied people want to work....but there aren't any jobs for them. Or the jobs available can't meet their costs of living (including basic medical care).
You're still completely and utterly failing to realize that some people have choices available to them that others do not. For instance, I can't make a major investment in angel funds to a budding start-up and see returns on said investment. I can't put significant money into the stock market either. I can't buy a house, renovate it, and then rent it for additional income. The choices I have available to me are to pay my bills, and continue working my retail job, while spending my free time making myself more employable, and searching for employment elsewhere. I'm also not unique. There are hundreds of thousands of people like me.
. . .
Yes but all of those realities are outcomes of your prior choices you see
Last edited by Illusions; 08-09-2012 at 08:55 PM. Reason: Automeatscript - Changed font to Georgia
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Name them please. I call BS.
You doubt the existence of minimum wage jobs, and jobs that are above minimum wage, and still below a living wage (or a wage that would put them in the lower economic class)?
Or do you doubt the need and want part? If all of a sudden all the retail workers who meet the above requirements didn't show up for work, would the work they are not doing get done via magic/house-elves?
. . .
And you are utterly failing to realize the thousands of poor choices poor people make everyday. Do you want me to dig up the articles on what % of cash they spend on alcohol, tobacco and the lottery? Not everyone starts rich but through hard work, perseverance and intelligent choices anyone can make middle class at the least.
What % of my income do you think I spend on alcohol, tobacco, and the lottery?
. . .
Illusions, you don't get it, you should feel totally ashamed of yourself for not understanding that it was 100% your choice in deciding your parents, what envirnoment you grew up in, what your early schooling focused on, and how you were raised. This foundation for the type of person you turned into was your decision and thus your fault.
You have to move past the nature vs nurture debate, neither one matters
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-10-2012 at 12:44 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
No, I doubt the existance of any jobs that prevent the people working in those jobs from "ever hoping to to rise out of the lower economic classes", please name those jobs that you're talking about.You doubt the existence of minimum wage jobs, and jobs that are above minimum wage, and still below a living wage (or a wage that would put them in the lower economic class)?
Or do you doubt the need and want part? If all of a sudden all the retail workers who meet the above requirements didn't show up for work, would the work they are not doing get done via magic/house-elves?
I know of a Circle K manager that still makes minimum wage while working full time, and thats about as high as he is going to get in the ladder. Places like that don't add money to titles. They add hours, not being a manager means unpredictable and shit hours. Throw in a kid and you are officially in poverty, remove the kid an even though its not official poverty $15 grand a year is a shit life.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-10-2012 at 12:51 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Uhh, promotions aren't a part of this, because you're a) no longer working the same job , b) not everyone can rise to the highest paid position in the company logically (or a position that would put them outside the economic range we're discussing here), and c) those lower level jobs are still necessary or wanted.
. . .
No idea. Do you want me to dissect your life?What % of my income do you think I spend on alcohol, tobacco, and the lottery?
So he does not get the tuition assistance? (from the link)
Is he an actual manager or something lower in the pecking order and just has a title that makes him a key holder (like a supervisory position but not a true manager?) that can open/close the store?
If a true manager (as in da boss) then he needs to leverage that to another chain and get the fuck out.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
haven't talked to him about tuition assistance. He says he is a manager, he has been there for years, I take him for a manager.
tuition assistance could mean anything. Wouldn't be surprised if its a ridiculously low percentage of a refund once the employee has already managed to pay for and finish the class, and only if its related to the job in some manner. At least thats how my government job now handles their assistance, and government employees always get the better deals.
I do know that several of the chains around here are owned by the same family, or very close friends. He could perhaps find himself a better job in a different gas station and start again from the bottom, or he could find his ass blacklisted. Clubbing with those guys was insane.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I don't know. How much do you want to continue making conjectures about other people's?
. . .
Didn't we have this discussion last time? Aren't you living in an area, (by choice) that has a high cost of living and a rather low number of jobs in the field you went to school for? You aren't choosing to buy cigarettes and booze, but you still are making choices that impact the number of options that you have.What % of my income do you think I spend on alcohol, tobacco, and the lottery?
Now, that is not to say that there are not good reasons behind the choices you have made, that's something I can't know, but that doesn't mean you don't have any other opportunities.
This is essentially the crux of my argument though, that regardless of the quality of choices of an individual, we exist in a society where certain jobs exist, that we need or want people to fill, that are then not compensated to the point where these people will be considered well off. Lewk is presenting a circular argument whereby poor people make poor choices, and the evidence that they've made poor choices is that they are poor. Lewk then gets angry at all poor people because he believes they are incompetent, or not working hard-enough, or what have you, and his evidence for their incompetence/lack of work ethic is just them being poor. I've been repeatedly trying to illustrate to him that even if everyone made optimal decisions in his opinion, there would still be poor people regardless, because we would not, and could not, provide everyone with a "successful" career (in Lewkowskian terms), and even if we could, we would still need people to work jobs that aren't paid well. It doesn't have anything to do with me in particular. The role I fill in my company, until such time as its no longer deemed necessary, will need to be filled by someone. The same goes with thousands of other positions.
So the solution is for every retail worker or anyone working in a position that pays less than a living wage to vacate Long Island, or find other jobs? I thought I brought this up last time that this isn't anywhere near a feasible solution.Now, that is not to say that there are not good reasons behind the choices you have made, that's something I can't know, but that doesn't mean you don't have any other opportunities.
. . .
I think you are reading into Lewks argument things which aren't there. Lewk doesn't consider, (please correct me if I am wrong here) all poor people failures, just as he probably also doesn't consider everyone who is wealthy a success. A person who is poor, struggling to get by, but working and making the most of their life would likely be a success to Lewk, not a failure. Someone who is fabulously wealthy, say a trust fund baby, who doesn't have to work and spends their money on drugs, lottery tickets, and cigarettes, all while lying, stealing, and being generally an ass would probably not be considered a success by Lewk.
I don't think I can recall ever seeing Lewk use money as the sole metric in measuring success. Independence, or more accurately, their level of dependence on the government would likely be a better starting point, and then how and what they choose to do with their life contributing factors.
Again, I would imagine the answer to that question would vary from person to person. If ones sole ambition in life is to work retail and live in Long Island, then I imagine there are any number of ways to make that happen, (up to and including taking on a number of room mates, and living very frugally). However, if that same person wanted something different from their life there are any number of opportunities that are afforded to them; opportunities that might necessitate moving and taking on a different line of work.So the solution is for every retail worker or anyone working in a position that pays less than a living wage to vacate Long Island, or find other jobs? I thought I brought this up last time that this isn't anywhere near a feasible solution.
Rand, the US has plenty of jobs that legally pay below federal minimum wage. Work in agriculture and food services especially.
Waitstaff in restaurants can have an hourly wage as low as $3 (depending on the state), on the assumption they'll make up the difference in tips. That might work at high-end restaurants, with 20% tips on hundred dollar meals, but not the average diner where a meal is five bucks (and tipping can be horrible). It's pretty rare outside large urban hubs to see service tips automatically added to any food or bar bill. Caterers sometimes pay waitstaff rates and share tips for large parties, but at their discretion (and servers don't know the final bill).
Migrant farm workers can be paid $5/hour, on the assumption the farmer/grower will provide housing, and give pickers a share of the crops to eat. Unfortunately, that 'housing' means a beat-up trailer with no running water, and bushels of peaches that spoil pretty fast. It's the same situation for housekeeping/janitorial work, seasonal landscape jobs, some jobs in 'hospitality' like hotels or cruise liners.
It's not just that we have millions of low-wage jobs, that don't have much 'upward mobility'.....but that working those jobs (sometimes 2 or 3 at the same time) doesn't afford housing (20-30%), utilities (10-20%), transportation (~10% depending on availability of public transit), food (10% or more for families), health insurance (20%)....and leave much leftover for things like medications, clothing/sundries....let alone saving.
It's called the poverty trap for a reason, ya know. When people are scraping by like that, a broken-down car can eat up any savings, or maybe losing their job. An accident or illness can mean bankruptcy, and maybe losing their job. Rinse, repeat.
That's the way we'd like or expect things to work. In reality, it doesn't always work like that --- not when family can be part of the support network (for shared housing, or child care, and pooling resources). And not when moving can mean trying to unload a house in a depressed housing market, or an underwater house with a mortgage, or choose between foreclosure and a crappy credit score.
Unless you're young and single, with no dependents and no mortgage, and don't rely on family to help make ends meet.....that "moving" part isn't always an option. Not to mention what "different line of work" means.
Long haul trucking has lots of openings, and pays well, too. Requires vocational training and special licensure. Most of the employment ads around here also require owning your own rig, doing contract work. Those trucks cost as much as a house, and necessitate a loan. What's that do for the poor/working poor person, who's got a crappy credit score (because they couldn't pay their medical bills, or pay their mortgage)?
Of course it doesn't always work like that. I don't think anybody said it did - or would. What was said was that individual choices are often to blame, or to thank for the situations we find ourselves in. Decisions that include purchasing a house you might not be able to afford, in an area that dropped significantly in value when the bottom fell out of the market, and deciding it's not worth it and mailing the bank your keys. If you want predictable security there's almost always a rental property/apartment you can lease. Not every choice can be made in an armchair on Monday morning - some have risks you know, others risks you do not, but that doesn't make the choice, or the consequences, the responsibility of someone else.
Would you agree with the statement that people who make poor financial decisions are more likely to be poor? If so then why the obstinate opposition to the logical conclusion?
And I'm not angry at poor people - I'm stating the case that I (and the tax payers in general) shouldn't have to pay for their bad decisions. Your absurd argument that certain jobs will need to be filled and they won't pay enough not to poor lacks all merit. It ignores the concept of some people starting at a menial job and work their way up. It ignores the reality that some people will just be lazy and/or make poor choices. Ground your arguments in reality not in a parallel world.
If you're able to sustain yourself and save a little for the future without governmental aid then I wouldn't call that person poor. Additionally my beef isn't with the temporary poor who work themselves out (again some folks do get a crummy start) but the permanent poor who remain poor because of their own decisions. The first step in defeating liberal redistribution schemes is to attack the premise that people are poor or rich by pure luck. That kind of thinking will keep people poor and dependent. Its an evil perverted view of life that says no matter what you do you're still at the whim of chance. Its bull shit that diminishes EVERY accomplishment and excuses EVERY failure.
Did anyone say choice-or-consequences are the responsibility of someone else? Nope. What has been said is that "choice" depends on many other factors, and other people, beginning with "no choice" of our parents, lineage, early childhood, community, society, etc. And that even best-laid plans, and good or wise decisions, can be totally reversed or undone by things we can't control or choose.
We all know life is inherently risky, often unpredictable, that "security" can be fragile or fleeting, or even an illusion of sorts. That practically begs for a "well, duh" response. Then we spend pages trying to explain to you, Lewk, or Rand that social policy, and public spending on Public Goods (health, education, welfare) is NOT meant to remove all risk, excuse personal failing, or diminish personal success. And that it's not a "liberal" idea to use public tax dollars that benefit society, but a "civilized" idea.
I live in Texas and while in High School I worked fast food and made more than minimum wage within 3 months of working there. Almost no one makes that type of money - its starting pay in most places. Less than 6% of Americans make that little buck for an hour's work. And I'd dispute the the notion that the majority of wait staff often make less than minimum wage.
You mean like the guy who enlisted in the military right out of high school, because that seemed like a good career choice --- and after serving he might use the GI bill to get a college degree? But instead came home missing a limb or two, or with PTSD, or just couldn't find a job anywhere even after getting that degree?
Is that guy's situation much different than the auto mechanic who ends up with asbestos-related cancer, after working on brake pads for a decade?
You've got a strange penchant for clinging to this "hard work = success" mantra. And I'm still waiting for some data and citations that explain your mindset about the "permanent poor who remain poor because of their own decisions".
Wow, you're bastardizing so many concepts there....and making claims based on nothing but your personal bias. Beginning with "liberal" and ending with "failure".The first step in defeating liberal redistribution schemes is to attack the premise that people are poor or rich by pure luck. That kind of thinking will keep people poor and dependent. Its an evil perverted view of life that says no matter what you do you're still at the whim of chance. Its bull shit that diminishes EVERY accomplishment and excuses EVERY failure.
edit: Not going to rehash this again. Feel free to refresh your memory, look up state minimum wages and sector exemptions. "Fast Food", especially national franchises, isn't the same as mom 'n pop diners, or family operated pizza shops who hire waitstaff aka servers.
Last edited by GGT; 08-10-2012 at 07:23 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote