Liberals Diminish Personal Success and Excuse Personal Failing

[Enoch the Red]

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.

Then I can't help but ask, what point are you trying to make that hasn't already been made? People are free to make decisions, and sometimes those decisions end badly. Some people keep making bad decisions, even when they know the outcome ahead of time.

If a person makes bad choices, squanders what little resources they have, and makes no effort to improve their station in life, who is to blame? What should be done?

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.

It's a civilized idea to pawn the responsibility you have to your friends, neighbors, and relatives off to total strangers? It's a civilized idea to make your burdens the responsibility of government? You and I must have very different definitions of civilized.

How's this for civilized: the welfare and well-being of my neighbors, family, and the inner city poor aren't the responsibility of someone else. They are my responsibility. That means volunteering at food pantries, spending my summers and my vacation days helping Habitat for Humanity, and generally doing what I can to make the world a better place. I don't require a government agency to be a decent human being. I think the same would hold true for most other people.

[GGT]

Relevance? You get hung up on placing blame, as an extension of self-responsibility, self-reliance. Trying to put those who "keep making bad decisions" in the same bunch as those who are "victims of circumstance" is an impossible approach. Because that means making a moral judgement, and assigning resources to those worthy of assistance.

You and I must have different definitions of burden. Sure, a civilized community/nation includes helping our neighbors, family, the poor, by volunteering. Yes, that's a decent thing to do, and very civil. But that can't provide a comprehensive education, decent housing, or modern health services to a nation of 400,000,000 people (and rising). Those are burdens better suited to cooperative efforts between private AND public, because they're very large and very expensive...but crucial services.

[RandBlade]

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.

Actually promotions are very much a part of it. Your claim was there existed "certain jobs you can work and never hope to rise out of the lower economic classes". If you work those jobs and hope to get promotion and/or use that experience to get a better job in another company then yes its very much possible to hope. Unless there's some special reason you can't even hope to leave that job/get promoted etc then your claim is and was complete and utter bullshit.

Of your points:
A is absurd as nobody does the same job cradle-grave and switching jobs is very much possible and part of that hope.
B is irrelevant as if there's hope there's hope, we were talking about hope not guarantees.
C is irrelevant as there'll be new people available to do those job.

Low paid jobs can be great jobs for a number of people: students looking to get beer money/work experience, secondary jobs for those who want to supplement their income, working parents who want flexible hours, people looking to get back into the workplace after a break etc, etc, etc - just because you take one of those jobs doesn't mean you're in it for life.

[GGT]

Low paying jobs are fine for the groups you mentioned. No one disputes that, Rand. The recent trend, and growing problem, is the loss of jobs in the middle. The Great Recession saw more people moving down the economic ladder, from middle income to lower income. Lower income folks continued to struggle to make it up the ladder. Some of that's structural....the new economy is more efficient and productive with fewer workers. Those workers can be easily replaced by cheaper labor in Asia, or computers and robots. One highly skilled engineer, maintaining the bots and screens, can replace hundreds or thousands of human hands.

I heard on CNN that a NBER study shows 46% of Americans now die with less than $10,000 in personal assets/wealth. It'd be one thing if that meant they'd spent their savings on world travel, fine wines and exciting adventures, or timed it just right to die before their money did. But I don't think that's what the results mean.

[RandBlade]

Recessions contract, so what?

And just because American's savings rates are so low (not just in America) doesn't prove anything.

[GGT]

Oops, I forgot you're in the group maintaining The Great Recession and Global Financial Crisis was....just another recession, business cycle, or 'creative destruction' that's normal capitalism, no big deal.

I'm not really trying to prove anything. But I know one thing for sure: Brits who die with little personal savings weren't denied medical care, or expected to bleed their retirement accounts dry in order to buy it.

[RandBlade]

I'm in the group maintaining that "shit happens". I'm also maintaining that the recession is nothing like the Great Depression, however much you try and conflate the two. Recessions are a fact of life, trying to avoid them just makes things worse.

So what you're saying is that retired Americans must drain their savings to have basic medical care? I'm guessing things like Medicare that I've heard of are an imaginary conspiracy made up by Fox News?

[Flixy]

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?

I would jokingly say that plenty of those seem to be middle management now But really, your argument is flawed, just because A is a cause of B does not mean all B is caused by A.

[Ominous Gamer]

I would jokingly say that plenty of those seem to be middle management now But really, your argument is flawed, just because A is a cause of B does not mean all B is caused by A.

This is Lewk, he just claimed that ~18 million people* is “almost no one”. He doesn’t understand that concept of quantity, anything that doesn’t fit in his mindsight is an outlier and not the norm.



*His math and reference to reach this claim is also horribly incorrect.

[Lewkowski]

Recessions contract, so what?

And just because American's savings rates are so low (not just in America) doesn't prove anything.

And of course GGT, Illusions and the other liberals will ignore WHY the American savings rate is so low. Hint - It was low PRIOR to the recession. Its all about choices, they wanted new electronics, they wanted to buy more house then they could reasonably afford, they wanted to live for today and not save for tomorrow. When tomorrow hits they bleat like sheep about how the recession screwed them. Complete and utter lack of personal responsibility for any choices they make.

[Lewkowski]

I would jokingly say that plenty of those seem to be middle management now But really, your argument is flawed, just because A is a cause of B does not mean all B is caused by A.

If you believe decisions you make effect your outcomes then you have to agree at least some percentage of people in poor outcomes are there due to poor decisions. We can argue about the size of that group but to say that people are poor because of circumstance only is stupid.

[Flixy]

If you believe decisions you make effect your outcomes then you have to agree at least some percentage of people in poor outcomes are there due to poor decisions. We can argue about the size of that group but to say that people are poor because of circumstance only is stupid.

You see, nobody says all of them are there due to circumstances. I don't deny that there are plenty of people there due to poor decisions. Arguing about the size of the group is precisely the point (and no, I don't have a clue how big that group is).

[Lewkowski]

You see, nobody says all of them are there due to circumstances. I don't deny that there are plenty of people there due to poor decisions. Arguing about the size of the group is precisely the point (and no, I don't have a clue how big that group is).

Wild guess - do you think its greater or smaller than 50%?

[Flixy]

Wild guess - do you think its greater or smaller than 50%?

To be honest, I haven't a clue about it, and it differs greatly from place to place and group to group. For example, for young people I'm sure it's far below 50%, a lot of young people are forced to work for minimum wage, even if you say they can work themselves up the ladder, that does take time.

[Ominous Gamer]

flixy's reason > lewk's gut

[RandBlade]

To be honest, I haven't a clue about it, and it differs greatly from place to place and group to group. For example, for young people I'm sure it's far below 50%, a lot of young people are forced to work for minimum wage, even if you say they can work themselves up the ladder, that does take time.

Yes ... and ... what's the problem with that?

Work your way up then. Better than the socialist Europe where we don't force people to work.

[Flixy]

Yes ... and ... what's the problem with that?

Work your way up then. Better than the socialist Europe where we don't force people to work.

Can you read? I was just answering Lewks question.

[Khendraja'aro]

Yes ... and ... what's the problem with that?

Work your way up then. Better than the socialist Europe where we don't force people to work.

Yay! Slaves for everyone!

Oh, you didn't mean that by "forcing"? Booh!

[GGT]

I'm in the group maintaining that "shit happens". I'm also maintaining that the recession is nothing like the Great Depression, however much you try and conflate the two. Recessions are a fact of life, trying to avoid them just makes things worse.

Of course "shit happens", regardless of making 'good decisions'. Let's not get into parsing Luck again.
Recessions aren't always accompanied by global financial crises, but when they are it's deeper and longer, and recoveries are slower and weaker. I've never conflated TGD with TGR, but used comparisons to see the context. Not just numbers and technicals on paper, but impacts on real people.

So what you're saying is that retired Americans must drain their savings to have basic medical care? I'm guessing things like Medicare that I've heard of are an imaginary conspiracy made up by Fox News?

Medicare isn't something you get "free" when turning 65 yrs old. It's a subsidized insurance product, requiring premiums from its members. It doesn't cover all costs, so folks need to buy Medi-gap insurance, too. Retirees on fixed incomes often struggle to pay those premiums....that's why a dilemma can be "whether to buy medications or groceries". To qualify for Medicaid, seniors have to divest their assets first (excluding their home) -- to become "poor" enough for that program. Buying a private insurance policy was very expensive when insurers could deny for pre-existing conditions (before PPACA) and what senior doesn't have at least one, and high-risk pools even more pricey.

Why do you think some 40 million Americans are "uninsured", underinsured, go without medical care or seek it too late, end up even sicker, and/or in medical bankruptcy? That's not just "shit happens"

And of course GGT, Illusions and the other liberals will ignore WHY the American savings rate is so low. Hint - It was low PRIOR to the recession. Its all about choices, they wanted new electronics, they wanted to buy more house then they could reasonably afford, they wanted to live for today and not save for tomorrow. When tomorrow hits they bleat like sheep about how the recession screwed them. Complete and utter lack of personal responsibility for any choices they make.

You've forgotten the threads I started before the recession, huh. When I'd write about high consumer debt, low-to-zero personal savings, people maintaining their standard of living by using credit cards, college loans paid with home-equity loans, rising prices of housing and the coming bubble, flat wage and income growth, absence of employee pension plans, youth unemployment rising, higher COL.....you accused me of being Chicken Little The Sky Is Falling.

We've already debated the housing bubble, predatory lending, overly optimistic buyers, the whole mess. We've already done the debate about the need for a cell phone and/or computer when job-hunting, if poor people or homeless can access a public library for that, when library funding dries up.

Still waiting for that data about all these dead-beat poor people, who are poor and remain poor BECAUSE of their decisions, and aren't taking responsibility for ANY choices they make.

[Lewkowski]

To be honest, I haven't a clue about it, and it differs greatly from place to place and group to group. For example, for young people I'm sure it's far below 50%, a lot of young people are forced to work for minimum wage, even if you say they can work themselves up the ladder, that does take time.

Sure this is why I use the phrase "permanent poor." I don't expect people to be successes right out of high school.

[Lewkowski]

Still waiting for that data about all these dead-beat poor people, who are poor and remain poor BECAUSE of their decisions, and aren't taking responsibility for ANY choices they make.

What data do you want? We can look at aggregate information such as % of poor people who do X. Or what percentage of people who do X end up poor.

You've forgotten the threads I started before the recession, huh. When I'd write about high consumer debt, low-to-zero personal savings, people maintaining their standard of living by using credit cards, college loans paid with home-equity loans, rising prices of housing and the coming bubble, flat wage and income growth, absence of employee pension plans, youth unemployment rising, higher COL.....you accused me of being Chicken Little The Sky Is Falling.

We've already debated the housing bubble, predatory lending, overly optimistic buyers, the whole mess. We've already done the debate about the need for a cell phone and/or computer when job-hunting, if poor people or homeless can access a public library for that, when library funding dries up.

So people *NEED* iphones? They *NEED* cell phones with unlimited minutes. They *NEED* texting? They *NEED* big screen screen TVs? They *NEED* to get brand new cars? Consumer spending on entertainment went up.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...hrinking.shtml

Going out to eat is WAY more costly then cooking at home. But millions of poor Americans do it. Why? Because its convent, easy, tasty and less work. I enjoy going out to eat (hmmm chic-fil-a ) but I can afford it. If you're poor or you spend more money then you make STOP EATING OUT! Will the poor do this? Oh hell no of course not. They live for the day and don't think about tomorrow.

Its time that people started taking more personal responsibility for where they are in life. Its only when people stop blaming others and start blaming themselves do they actually *change* their faulty habits and decision making. Giving people an out for their difficulties just enables them.

[Ominous Gamer]

So people *NEED* iphones? They *NEED* cell phones with unlimited minutes. They *NEED* texting? They *NEED* big screen screen TVs? They *NEED* to get brand new cars? Consumer spending on entertainment went up.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...hrinking.shtml

Going out to eat is WAY more costly then cooking at home. But millions of poor Americans do it. Why? Because its convent, easy, tasty and less work. I enjoy going out to eat (hmmm chic-fil-a ) but I can afford it. If you're poor or you spend more money then you make STOP EATING OUT! Will the poor do this? Oh hell no of course not. They live for the day and don't think about tomorrow.

Its time that people started taking more personal responsibility for where they are in life. Its only when people stop blaming others and start blaming themselves do they actually *change* their faulty habits and decision making. Giving people an out for their difficulties just enables them.

your article is referring to content, not hardware. It does not back your claim. You're also ignoring the concept that because of the easier access to content (as well as the explosion of said content), entertainment is eating away at other forms of recreation. Its not that people are spending more, its that they are spending elsewhere.

How the fuck you are tying the changing nature of recreational activites to the poor, and fast food, only your twisted mind could explain. The market for high-end over-priced luxury cars is also rising, can we blame that on poor people eating off the dollar menu too?

[Lewkowski]

your article is referring to content, not hardware. It does not back your claim. You're also ignoring the concept that because of the easier access to content (as well as the explosion of said content), entertainment is eating away at other forms of recreation. Its not that people are spending more, its that they are spending elsewhere.

How the fuck you are tying the changing nature of recreational activites to the poor, and fast food, only your twisted mind could explain. The market for high-end over-priced luxury cars is also rising, can we blame that on poor people eating off the dollar menu too?

What are you talking about? If you have the money to afford luxury goods what is the problem? The problem is people is people who cannot afford things and they are still buying them. Go see how many cell phones, large TVs, rims and overpriced cars are out there in poor neighborhoods.

[Ominous Gamer]

What are you talking about? If you have the money to afford luxury goods what is the problem? The problem is people is people who cannot afford things and they are still buying them. Go see how many cell phones, large TVs, rims and overpriced cars are out there in poor neighborhoods.

I want to ask you the same thing. You jumped from a claim of poor people buying expensive entertainment items (which you haven't proven), and you used that to lead into poor people eating fast food.
The base of your argument is invalid, and when you got called on it you fell back on your gut feeling with "its out there, go look".

[RandBlade]

What are you talking about? If you have the money to afford luxury goods what is the problem? The problem is people is people who cannot afford things and they are still buying them. Go see how many cell phones, large TVs, rims and overpriced cars are out there in poor neighborhoods.

In the UK satellite pay TV is more common than cable. You can drive around Council estates and virtually every house has a satellite dish.

Then again just go past the dole office (aka JobCentre) and everyone's smoking.

[GGT]

What data do you want? We can look at aggregate information such as % of poor people who do X. Or what percentage of people who do X end up poor.

Then show causation. According to your reasoning, X must be a behavior specific to poor people and poverty. If non-poor do X and don't end up in poverty, X can't be a cause. See how that works?

So people *NEED* iphones? They *NEED* cell phones with unlimited minutes. They *NEED* texting? They *NEED* big screen screen TVs? They *NEED* to get brand new cars? Consumer spending on entertainment went up.

People need phones, yeah. Cell phones are affordable nowadays, and often replace landlines. Even my $13 pay-go cell phone has texting and cheap long distance minutes. You can pick up a refurbished iPhone for under 50 bucks on the web, with a 2 yr service contract -- and they'll even throw in a second free phone. Multiple people can share a service plan, making it even cheaper.

For all you know, those big screen tvs and 'brand new' cars were bought used, or deeply discounted on eBay. Consumer spending on entertainment rose in aggregate....how much of that came from "percent used by poor people"?

Going out to eat is WAY more costly then cooking at home. But millions of poor Americans do it. Why? Because its convent, easy, tasty and less work. I enjoy going out to eat (hmmm chic-fil-a ) but I can afford it.

The dollar menu at McDonald's isn't really going out to eat, but it's an affordable treat even poor people deserve occasionally. Again, for all you know, they received a coupon booklet as a gift, to take the kids out for an ice cream. WTF is wrong with you? Can you go to Chick Fil A and pick out who "the poor people" are, or who can afford it, based on their appearances?

If you're poor or you spend more money then you make STOP EATING OUT! Will the poor do this? Oh hell no of course not. They live for the day and don't think about tomorrow.

Dude, you're picking on the wrong group. It's the employed middle-income/middle class that's doing most of the eating out, buying tech gadgets, the latest flat screen, bigger houses, more entertainment. Spending more *than* they make. Racking up debt by using credit, taking vacations before saving for retirement, living for the day.

Its time that people started taking more personal responsibility for where they are in life. Its only when people stop blaming others and start blaming themselves do they actually *change* their faulty habits and decision making. Giving people an out for their difficulties just enables them.

Good luck changing the American culture of consumption, dominated by middle income earners. Especially since consumerism makes up 70% of our entire economy. I agree people need to spend less and save more. The paradox of thrift will mean losing more businesses and jobs, and possibly lowering our SOL, and redefining "poor" or "working poor".

In the UK satellite pay TV is more common than cable. You can drive around Council estates and virtually every house has a satellite dish.

Then again just go past the dole office (aka JobCentre) and everyone's smoking.

Again with the apples-to-oranges? The US doesn't have a welfare system anything like the UK. But it's interesting to see you and Lewk bark up the same tree, hating on poor people in general.

Why don't you two go head-to-head on healthcare, your NHS vs our private insurance-based system....and who deserves medical care they can't pay for?

[RandBlade]

So are you saying Geegee that we CAN slash our welfare spending because of the NHS?

[GGT]

I'm interested in seeing Rand v Lewk, a debate on medicine/healthcare between two 'conservatives' from different countries. Subsidized or SSSocialized, private or public. Wasn't Thatcher a big advocate for NHS?

[RandBlade]

So are you saying Geegee that we CAN slash our welfare spending because of the NHS?

You didn't answer.

[Lewkowski]

In the UK satellite pay TV is more common than cable. You can drive around Council estates and virtually every house has a satellite dish.

Then again just go past the dole office (aka JobCentre) and everyone's smoking.

I'm not surprised. Further evidence of poor people remaining poor because of their own decisions.