You cannot. But a lot of government welfare programs have work requirements.
Appropriate the means of production for the state and have the state dole out jobs to all seeking?
Sure, luck and the environment are responsible when Republican voters have problems. When Democratic voters have problems, it’s due to intrinsic factors and individual efforts.
You are entitled to your opinion regardless of its ugliness.
From a firm’s earnings, subtract expenses, wages, future budgeting, and dividends, and the result is zero. That’s just basic accounting, and is the literal description of a zero-sum game.
People who say business isn’t a zero-sum game are usually rationalizing why it’s OK for them to receive large sums in the present, but everyone else will need to wait patiently for an uncertain amount of time to receive an uncertain sum.
So at gunpoint, or least the threat of. :smack:
Since he’s describing the conservative viewpoint, I concur with you regarding its essential ugliness.
One thing that numerous studies have shown is that while people from poor backgrounds do sometimes break out of poverty and become successes, economic mobility isn’t all that common in the U.S… Families tend to be in the same economic stratum for generations. The economic situation of the family you were born into is by far the biggest factor in where you will wind up.
Conservatives’ response to this is largely to ignore it and pretend that everyone has the same shot at success.
Liberals ask, what can we do about this? And while there’s really no way to completely even the odds, there’s plenty that can be done to reduce the steepness of the tilt.
A higher minimum wage and re-empowering unions so that work, any work, can enable a decent life. Good public education, including public pre-K, so the difference in parents’ educational background is ameliorated earlier in life. Making college inexpensive again so that poor kids who really don’t know how they’ll turn college now into a career in a few years don’t see it as an enormous gamble that could trap them in debt for life. Reducing that huge affirmative action program for the rich at elite colleges known as ‘legacy admissions.’ A heavy estate tax so that the great-grandkids of rich people might actually have to make their own way in the world like everyone else. Reforming law enforcement policies that target persons of color and disproportionately damage their chances of success when they’re just getting started. The list goes on.
The thing is, we see this persistence as a problem that can be addressed. Not solved, but reduced. Conservatives, as I’ve said, prefer not to see it.
I specified capitalism, not any particular business. You’re wrong about the business anyway. The accounts of a business must balance, but that doesn’t mean that it’s zero-sum. It - hopefully - generates a profit for its owners
I’m going to repeat one of my favorite takes on an old adage:
Give a hungry man a fish, he eats for a day
Teach a hungry man to fish, he eats for a lifetime
Teach a million hungry men to fish, you’ll have a million hungry, angry men with fillet knives fighting for space on the dock.
The problem isn’t that your brother in law is poor and needs advice, it’s that 60 million Americans are poor (in the bottom economic quintile) and encouraging all of them to make better decisions isn’t really an answer. They’re not all going to get better jobs, or all going to stop using pay day loans, or stop buying lottery tickets, no matter how much good advice you give them. Even if they tried, there are only so many economic opportunities for people with less advanced skills or education. They will deny themselves luxuries or work exceptionally hard and derive little to no eventual benefit from it.
Conservatives are experts at suggesting microeconomic solutions to macroeconomic problems. They seem like sound solutions, but are useless because the problem spans millions of people, not just one.
Teach a thousand men to fish and you can devastate an entire watershed.
I was using those two women as examples of “people who have both tons of boxes and tons of travel stuff and books”: substitute other people who happen to have tons of boxes and tons of travel stuff and books but who happen to be American. Hence my use of the words “someone like”.
Or are you saying that no American citizen or national has tons of boxes, books and travel stuff?
I simply don’t believe that you don’t understand this.
The study shows two correlations—conservatives tend to have more cleaning supplies and organizing aids and liberals tend to have more books and travel-related stuff.
Nowhere does it say that no one exists that doesn’t have both. Those are statements of tendency. Which is what statistical studies look for.
Being an analysis of statistical samples, it’s not disproven just because you can come up with anecdotes about specific instances that seem not to adhere to those tendencies.
I don’t believe for a moment that conservatives embrace the idea that life is fair; in fact I think they know from day one that it’s not fair. They simply argue that this condition is the natural state in which we live, and that it’s up to each family to look after their own, and each individual to look after himself.
They believe that people have the right to exploit other individuals, and that the stronger among us find ways to break free from such exploitation, typically by showing our capitalistic ‘value’ to those who exploit us, thereby moving up the socioeconomic ladder within an entity, or by gambling and staking out on our own as entrepreneurs or freelance laborers. Such a system tends to be ‘fairer’ when you have mechanisms in place that redistribute wealth so that it doesn’t concentrate so easily in the hands of the few. But absent of such institutions and systems, left to its own devices, wealth is leveraged by those who create it so that it tends to be highly oppressive, with opportunities for socioeconomic mobility quite limited.
Conservatives know that they’re not being fair, but the assumption among most is that they’re so smart that they won’t succumb when institutions give way to a socioeconomic and political jungle. What they underestimate is the degree to which they are being protected by the institutions for which they have contempt. Were their economic dreams to become reality, they would quickly become prey.
This also seems strange to me. If I was born to crappy parents, and went to a shitty school, and constantly moved from place to place, and I went up to you and said “Hey Broomstick, how can I get out of poverty?”
What would you say?
Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day.
Teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime.
Teach a million men to fish and they’ll eat all the fish within a year and then starve.
Thing is, the study is starting from the notion that owning boxes is a sign of orderly tendencies and owning travel mementos, of adventuresomeness. That is what is not proven.
Don’t waste your money on tobacco, marijuana (or other drugs), alcohol, or lottery tickets. Learn how to budget instead of following the latest fad. Get your high school diploma or, if you really can’t stand the shitty school at all, get your GED. Get 7-8 hours of sleep a night. Eat good food instead of junk. If you don’t have a physically active job find some sort of exercise and do it regularly because staying healthy is one of the best investments you can make. You’re going to have to work. If you work at something illegal you might get money quick but your risk jail and/or early death. If you work at something honest you likely won’t make as much money (and certainly not as fast) but your life will be a lot less stressful. Get to work slightly early so you can start on time. Put down the damn phone while you’re at work. Stay until the end of the day. Once you’re off work use the damn phone to research how to make a budget and stick to it. Learn how to save money. Don’t tell anyone how much money you have, especially your jacked up family, and don’t try to support anyone else until you yourself are self-supporting. Don’t become someone else’s ATM. Stay the fuck away from payday loans. Use birth control. Either go to community college or into a trade if you can find a way to do that. A trade means you’ll have to work your ass off but these days it might be a better bet for getting a decent job than a 2 or 4 year college degree. Focus on education that will lead to a job. Learn to network, by which I mean associate with people who are getting ahead in life even if other people around you call that brown-nosing or acting white or getting above yourself or acting uppity. If a lucky opportunity comes your way you need to be ready to take advantage of it. If it doesn’t, you’ll still need to keep working.
Good luck - no one can guarantee you’ll get rich, but if you follow the above you maximize your chances of being self-supporting.
Because I’m not going to lie and tell someone they’ll get rich. You can follow all the above and still never get above lower middle class or, in some circumstances, you’ll still be poor. You’ll just be less at the mercy of others.
Because the brutal fact in our society is that all of the above is MUCH easier if you are white, male, able-bodied, good looking, and don’t have children. Once you change any of those variables the whole project becomes much harder.
I agree 100%.
So much advice directed at poor people is accurate and effective but virtually impossible to actually execute. I can tell people to eat good food and exercise, but the truth is that Ramen costs less than protein and vegetables. Hunger leads to headaches, fatigue, irritability, and an inability to focus. A person suffering the stress of extreme poverty probably doesn’t have the time or the energy to work out. For someone under extreme stress, just making it through the day is an accomplishment. Smoking, booze, drugs, and luxuries are tools they use in a desperate attempt to maintain their sanity and try to relieve their suffering.
My wife taught middle school. She had a student who was persistently hostile, uncooperative, and inattentive. In my day, someone would have disciplined him, as if a good old-fashioned ass-whupping was what he needed to fix his attitude. My wife figured out pretty quickly that he was just hungry because his parent couldn’t afford breakfast. His disciplinary and behavioral problems are all obvious symptoms of hunger. And - like some kind of sorcery - when she brought the kid an apple in the morning his mood improved, he had more energy, and he became a better student.
And here’s the other part that blows my mind: Better student means better grades means more likely to graduate means less likely to be on welfare and less likely to be in prison. So even from a purely selfish and utilitarian perspective, I have a choice between paying for the child’s welfare now or paying MORE in ten years when he is unemployed or in prison.
And yet try explaining this basic mathematical concept to conservatives, and they call me a brainwashed liberal retard.
I also don’t expect 100% compliance. I don’t expect a poor person to NEVER have a beer, NEVER buy a lottery ticket ever, NEVER be late for work… because they’re human beings. There’s a double-standard where the better-off can do those things without criticism but if a poor person has an occasional indulgence well, that’s just proof they deserve to be miserable.