Can someone teach him the difference between “monetary reward” and “value” while we are at it, please?
ETA: I see Gyrate is saying it better than I could.
Yay! Less Rand, more Egolf! And a better world for all. 
No prob.
I agree. But there is a limited extent to which a person can create their own wealth opportunities; there’s only so many businesses providing the same service that the market can support, and oftentimes the success of one person or business will mean it takes profit from others. Too, especially so these days a lot of jobs are changing because of mechanisation, or simply failing due to there not being as much demand any more (there’s not a huge amount of fletchers and thatchers around, even here). While a person may certainly be able to train to perform a new job, many companies aren’t going to be willing to invest money in training someone who’ll retire soon as compared to a younger person. That opportunities are not uniformly distributed among industries isn’t necessarily a good thing when we’re talking about skilled work.
As for moving, the problem lies in that if someone’s looking for a job, chances are that they might not have all that much money, and moving can be a costly business. Besides, pointing out that people can leave the few opportunities in one place for many in another misses out that even in the new place should they succeed there’ll be one person who would’ve got the job but didn’t. There’s still a limited amount of opportunities to take.
That’s true. But your post that I replied to suggested that what you valued was effort; people genuinely doing their best. If we’re to say that a person doing their best is the one that deserves the “reward” of a good job/pay/success, that doesn’t just include the gold medal winner. The silver and bronze winners didn’t get those medals because they tried respectively less hard than the one who took gold. If we say that what deserves reward is effort, then it seems reasonable to try and help those who do not succeed at least to some extent; they may very well have tried their hardest too. On the other hand, we could say that effort does not determine reward; that trying their best does not affect what they “deserve” to have, but instead use some other measure. I’d tend to disagree with that, and i’d guess from your respect for those who put in that effort that you would tend to agree with me if only on that point (though certainly say if i’m wrong!).
The Olympics measure not just effort, but base talent, effectiveness of physiology, mental state, and all those things which we aren’t able to control. It’s fine for the winner alone to get the gold because we’re using overall success to determine who’s deserving. But if the measure we’re using is effort, if that which we value is that which we can control, then more than one athlete would get the gold.
Good point. I quote John Bender:
“Without lamps there would be no light.”
As a side experiment, let’s say all the tax lawyers/garbagemen disappeared, but we were allowed to attempt to fill their jobs. It’ll take me about a week to get all the garbagemen I need, good luck getting the tax lawyer jobs filled.
You’re not in NYC, are you? Tax attorneys are waiting tables in restaurants, awaiting their big break. Waiting tables, man! Oh, the humanity {snif} 
You just reminded me of my fourth grade teacher, Sr. Mary who once lectured us for making a face when we passed the garbage men picking collecting at the dumpster. She told us if a friend ever told us their father was a garbageman to say, “Really? That’s pretty cool.” No doubt Rand Rover was the type of person she had in mind.
A lot of that list applied to me (and made me a bit depressed), and I’m not “dirt poor”, just a guy making $16 an hour at a temp job, trying to live in the city with 3 kids and an employer who doesn’t offer health insurance.
Pick a nation where there are almost no taxes of any kind. Say, Haiti.
Pick a nation where there are very, very high taxes. Say, Sweden.
Where would you rather live in wealth?
By the way, on any list of nation rankings by tax burden, the U.S. is fairly low on the list for a fully industrialized nation.
People like Rand make me sick because they clearly want the comfort and stability and resources of a nation that has high taxes, but they blatantly want someone else to pay for them. Assholes.
Can I reintroduce the lawyer jokes now?
Seriously, you have a fair point, although I suspect garbagemen are less easy to recruit and train than you think (for a start, it’s a really unpleasant job and those trucks aren’t exactly the easiest things to drive). However, the fact remains that tax lawyers offer a much more specialized service to a much more limited client base than garbagemen. If it helps, try thinking of other low-paid but critical service-sector jobs: teachers, police, firemen, nurses. These jobs all require training, not just anyone can do them and the loss of them (or a significant number of them) would be of serious detriment to society.
Which brings me to what should be your next point - there are far more garbagemen (teachers, police, etc) than there are tax lawyers (at least I hope so!). Would the unreplaced loss of one individual tax lawyer have more or less impact than one unreplaced garbageman job (and I stress again that the question pertains to society as a whole)?
Maybe we should measure aggregated value - the sum total of what is paid to all garbagemen everywhere vs the sum total of what is paid to all tax lawyers everywhere - as a yardstick for societal value rather than looking at per capita earnings? That might work - except that Ms Rand was never big on group worth, so the point is moot. I’ll wait for the lawyer to weigh in on this one.
What Rand Rover is referring to by this is the fact that Obama’s platform calls for expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to more working families. The EITC is a refundable tax credit for low-income working people which sometimes functions as a “net negative tax”—some recipients get more money from their EITC than they actually paid in their federal income taxes, so their actual income gets a boost.
Of course, the EITC has been part of the federal tax code in some form or another ever since freakin’ 1969, and it would not be eliminated in a McCain administration. So this “taking money from the rich for cash handouts for the poor” is hardly a new feature in tax policy, nor is it specific to Obama’s plan. But as I noted above, Rand Rover-type arguments in general are not signally characterized by their consistency or logic.
I wonder what our good friend Rand’s response will be to THIS.
Hey, they just added $85 billion of “value” to the company, they deserve a break for all that “effort”.
Sounds like you just got nailed.
Yeah, but indirectly. Rand Rover is right that he didn’t actually call government assistance to the poor “a far out and nutty thing”. What he said is that he thinks opposition to the principle of government assistance to the poor is not “a far out and nutty thing”.
But your inference from that statement remains basically valid. If Rand Rover thinks that opposing the entire concept of the welfare state isn’t actually a wacko-fringe idea, then he simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about. As you rightly noted, the welfare state in some form or another is one of the generally accepted fundamental principles of government in every industrialized country throughout the world.
I completely agree with you that Rand Rover is entitled to his wacko-fringe opinions, and holding such opinions doesn’t automatically mean that he’s stupid. But if he can’t even recognize the fact that his opinions are wacko-fringe, then yeah, gotta be either stupid or ignorant, or both.
Well he is a self-identified randroid. But chances are he’ll grow out of it.
He’s also fine with the welfare state…as long as it’s welfare to the rich. (IIRC, he does support the recent bailout)
OK people, please keep a couple of things in mind:
-
I’m not opposed to all government aid to poor people. I’m opposed to cash handouts to poor people. I’ve said this a hundred times and people keep ignoring it. I’d be OK with employment training and food stamps for people with kids. Obama’s tax plan massively increases cash handouts to the poor, and he makes it worse by calling it a tax cut. My whole rant here about cash to the poor started with Obama’s tax plan.
-
OK I guess just one thng (Hi Opal?).
Gah. Hard to respond to this. Seems like you are intentionally misunderstanding what I’m saying (is this an approved anti-troll technique or something)?
All I’m saying is: 1. You have to look at the impact of increasing marginal rates on people who make investments (i.e., create jobs), not just wage earners. 2. I said there was no stopper in your rubric (i.e., your discussion of the roles of the government and the market), not that there’s no stopper to any actual policy of progressive taxation.
Again, I just don’t want cash handouts. I’m OK with some assistance for the poor as long as it is temporary and designed to show them how to be not poor (and food stamps for people with kids are OK too). Subsidizing people for doing bad things is a bad idea, and not contributing to society is a bad thing.
There is no contradiction in my desire for the government not to provide cash handouts to the poor and my lack of contribution to private charity. I’m saying that if you want to give cash to the poor, then fine, but I don’t want to and don’t want to be forced to.
Listening.
I love this argument. The left, as the defenders of the noble poor and oppressed from the running dog jackals of the ruling class, now portray the poor as holding a knife to their throat.
But I think you’re wrong in several different ways. First, the historical analysis is wrong. People generally start kicking ass not just when they are poor but when there are societal constraints placed in the way of getting themselves out of poverty. So, as long as society has a capitalist system, protects private property, allows people to invest and create jobs, and allows people to work, these types of riots don’t happen. I will admit I have not made an exhaustive historical study of this hypothesis, but neither have you of yours.
Second, read point 1 above. I’m not against giving anything to the poor, just cash handouts. Fine with employment education and food stamps (but only for people with kids–poor adults who can work and don’t can starve).
Third, this is what police and private firearm ownership is for.
Fourth, when governments decide how much to give to the poor, they don’t do it based on how much will stop the poor from rioting. This argument only comes up in these kinds of situations and never when policy is being made (which shows that no one really believes it).
My philosophy says these people don’t exist (unless they have mental or physical disabilities).
Again, I was talking about an upper limit on her conception of what it’s OK for the government to do, not any actual policy. You are smarter than this 'luci.
Yeah, hell if I know, I was on the blackberry.
Here goes: Obama's Tax Plan Is Really a Welfare Plan - WSJ
You know what they say happens when you assume, right? I hate corporate welfare even more than cash handouts to the poor because it’s an issue that makes me agree with lots of lefties. I wish the damn airlines and car companies would just fail if they can’t make the business work–there’s no reason for the government to give them low interest loans or stimulus packages. The current bailout is a possible exception for reasons discussed below.
Gimme dem beans back, bitch!
But seriously, food stamps for poor people with kids are OK. Wars are OK too.
I’m probably the nicest motherfucker you’ll ever meet, so I’m not mean and hateful at all (just don’t bring up Obama at dinner, makes me lose my appetite).
Guin, do you wake up every morning and actually think about how to be more of a stupid cow than you already are? I’ve tried to be civil here (despite the fact that only a couple of you have been civil to me), but Guin here just . . . OK I’m done.
Anyone willing to do work is OK in my book. It just so happens that some work is more valuable to society than other work, which is why people pay more for it.
Thanks for your help, and you’re right. However, I don’t oppose the entire idea of the welfare state. I just don’t want the government to make cash handouts to the poor.
Wrong, I grew into it (I was a total commie in junior high).
Stupid cow goes . . .
Wrong, as discussed above. Also, side point–all you people that rail against corporate welfare, you realize Obama has approved earmarks out the ass, not all of which went to individuals, right? Is corporate welfare OK when Democrats do it?
The recent bailout is a different beast than your run of the mill corporate welfare. First, the government is buying assets (either shitty mortgage-backed debt or securities in a bailout recipient) and not just handing over cash, so it won’t cost the full face (and there’s a chance the government makes a profit (fat chance, but a chance)). Second, there’s lots of precedent for actions like these in times like these both in the US and abroad, and they seem to have worked. Japan also provides precedent for not taking action like this, whcih lead to decades of stagnation.
So, I guess I’m undecided on whether I like the bailout or not.
Alright, back to work for me.
A central tenet of your philosophy is something that is empirically false? That seems problematic.
OK, so explain to me how someone “remains poor through no fault of their own.”