In the course of my job, I meet a lot of adults who are paid $10 per hour or less. Given that these people are working in a large city in the United States, I would definitely consider them poor. A very large percentage of them have smart phones, cars, time to work second jobs, and so on.
So based on my experience I would say that at least in theory, a large percentage of poor people could choose to make more money and/or spend less.
Be nice to brazil84. It wasn’t a great analogy, but he’s trying. At no point in that did I want to strangle him. Instead, I was urging him along.
As for the poor, Are there no prisons? And the workhouses–are they still in operation? We could put them to work picking oakum.
Are you sure that’s Brazzers? It sounded almost reasonable.
As long as we are talking about facts, here, I have a chart that says my balls are more sizable than Steve McQueen’s were. Its in chart form, so its legit.
It keeps getting kicked off of Steve’s Wikipedia article, though. Its surely the liberal media holding the truth down.
WOOT! Soviet Canuckistan at #6!
For your information, I would be a great suicide prevention hotline answerer. My clients would love me! Then I’d have an army of people willing to die for me. I just don’t have a good phone voice ;p
Can a make an analogy that’s 150% better?
Telling financially stable people to save 15% of their salary is like telling a fat person to cut 15% of his calories.
What we’re saying is that telling poor people to save 15% of their hourly wage is like telling Third World refugees to tighten their belt some more.
Too late. They ate the belt, showing, once again, that their irresponsible and imprudent behavior is the true source of their problems.
Debaser’s ilk to famine victims: “You know, you’re looking a little bloated. Have you thought about trying a 7 Day Fat Blast?”
Well, they’re only eating because they’re lazy. If they would be working like they’re supposed to, they wouldn’t have time to eat. It has the added bonus of making you thinner which takes less calories to survive. Profit!
Let it never be said that conservatives are not compassionate, as they understand how it would be “pretty hard” to live in a roach-infested apartment and lose two hours of time every day while working two jobs, not owning a car, and not being allowed to own a mobile phone (mine, personally, cost me $10 and is cheaper than a landline).
Such compassion, such understanding. It’s amazing how pit threads like these always seem to attract more heartless bastards like flypaper.
Do you dispute any of the factual statements I made?
If stating the truth means I am a heartless bastard, then so be it.
I’d like to explore this exchange a bit more.
cornopean posits (as I read it) that if the typical senior had invested the same money they contributed to Social Security in a relatively safe investment, they’d have more money now than the money they are now entitled to obtain from Social Security.
And as I read Evil Economist’s response, he disagrees with that claim.
Is that an accurate summary?
If it is, I think evil Economist’s scalding rejoiner is misplaced. This is essentially a factual question: does a reasonably risk-adverse investment plan historical returns outperform the “returns” offered by Social Security?
Yes, or no?
No. Social Security provides benefits for society in general which would not be realized in every man for himself investments. Simply comparing the performance an investment plan to the individual benefits paid by Social Security is not a useful exercise to determine which is better public policy.
What’s incorrect is thinking of social security as an investment in the first place, which is why you correctly put “returns” in quotes.
So 30% of the people who are getting social security benefits couldn’t get those same benefits from a retirement account, because they’re not retired workers or the spouses of retired workers. Social security is not, and has never claimed to be, some kind of an investment plan, and it’s therefore silly to compare it to an investment plan by calculating an interest rate.
It really comes down to which part of cornopean’s claim Evil Economist was objecting to.
[QUOTE=cornopean]
I have read reports that Social Security earns something like below one percent interest.
[/QUOTE]
As pointed out, this is bunk because social security is “pay as you go.”
[QUOTE=cornopean]
If those same seniors had invested that money in even a relatively safe investment, they would have much more money at retirement.
[/QUOTE]
Possible (probably?) true, but it’s besides the point, and shows a lack of understanding of who gets social security benefits.
Bolding mine. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Those silly poor people, wasting all that free time on a second job! :rolleyes:
Do you understand the difference between “can” and “should”?
I didn’t see anything in the question about “benefits to society.”
There’s nothing in there about any “benefit to society,” real or imagined.
I suppose if someone took the answer, “Yes, if those same seniors had invested that money in even a relatively safe investment, they would have much more money at retirement,” and argued therefrom that this showed private investment was a better public policy, you could then trot out your “benefits” as a counter-argument.
But the question didn’t include them.
So I ask again: if those same seniors had invested that money in even a relatively safe investment, they would have much more money at retirement – true, or false?
An excellent answer. “True, but not relevant.”
In my opinion, when responding to a claim that’s true, “Of course that’s incorrect, you idiot,” is not a defensible answer. “Yes, true, but completely irrelevant, you idiot,” would at least have had the virtue of being accurate while retaining the venom.
Maybe on average, but individuals would do better or worse, with some facing complete failure.