Don’t be silly. I’d require at least $10,000 to even put a dent in my “poor”. $100,000 should do nicely, though. (Don’t worry - I don’t expect even a dime from you.)
More seriously, if you gave me $1 you’d get my profound gratitude and perhaps some lettuce or green beans out of my garden, after which I’d spend said dollar on something silly like food or new pants for work (actually, a $1.25 at my local Goodwill, but I’ll scrape up the quarter on my own ). At any rate, it would go back into the local economy very quickly.
Garage sales in the suburbs, cruise for spoor, hand-lettered signs on street corners. Forget inner city sources, strike out to where people have more money than sense. They’ll try to sell their Grannys worm-eaten rocking chair for $300, but sell a working bike for $5. Picked up a three-piece wedding/funeral/bail hearing suit for$10. Only things I won’t buy used, underwear and beer.
Being poor is drudgery, being poor successfully is a sport.
By lying to you, cheating you, abusing you, insulting you, hurting you, all sorts of ways. I note that by your definition nothing short of outright slavery qualifies as exploitation. The workers are apparently just supposed to grovel in joy that their employer has deigned to employ them, regardless of how they are treated or how little they are paid.
As for “creating the businesses and companies that employ poor people and provide them with wages”, most of the people carrying those companies on their backs are the low level employees you sneer at. Without them, those companies go away. Why is it fair that the people who contribute the most get the least ?
And again we see that “personal responsibility” is really just code for “screw the common people”.
Your philosophy is very one sided; the wealthy employers are entitled to squeeze the employees as ruthlessly as they like. But the employees on the other hand aren’t supposed to fight back for a fair share; greed is only good when it’s the greed of the rich. If fairness doesn’t matter, then why shouldn’t the lower classes use whatever leverage they can get to take money from the wealthy?
This is a reminder to those who insist that the poor can live reasonably on minimum wage. That works only if nothing happens unexpectedly in your life. Let’s hope that you aren’t severly injured in a car accident or a fall from a horse. Maybe you won’t get MS or Paget’s Disease, but all of these things happened to friends of mine.
This summer if I had not had good insurance, I would have had somewhere over $20,000 in hospital bills. That doesn’t include medication. And I wasn’t even admitted! Some of you just don’t realize that there are times that you must have medical care or you will die. And for some people, the dying part would be a relief. Some pain is just intolerable.
We have to end the outrageously vile system that leaves people to suffer so horribly.
On the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, the people live in non-insolated shacks with no electricity or gas. There is no heat in winter. There is nothing to break the sweep of the icy wind over the plains. Even fifteen people living in a room brings little warmth. Unemployment is at about 85%. It is the poorest county in the United States.
Conservative or liberal, what have you done personally to help the poor in your community or elsewhere?
No. The workers can find a new job if they don’t like the one they have. They can also bargain for higher wages from their current employer. This goes back to your main theme, that poor people are sub-human trash. You think that we shouldn’t expect poor people to do what normal people do (i.e., find a new job or bargain for better wages).
Because the value of the services performed by the lower level employees is lower than the value of the services of those who are paid more. It doesn’t matter that the company can’t function without any lower level employees–if any one of them leaves, they can be replaced easily.
What?
This doesn’t follow from anything that msmith or I have said. The employees are free to be just as “greedy” as they want to be, and that “greed” is just as good as the “greed” of the rich as far as I’m concerned.
Question for you, Rand - can you conceive a situation where, in fact, giving money to a disadvantaged person (maybe poor, maybe not poor but minimally educated, maybe disabled somehow - define “disadvantaged” how you wish) would be the best way to enable that person to better him or herself? Or some situation where government assistance (doesn’t have to be huge, just some form of assistance) might lead to a better outcome than no government involvement at all? Consider it a thought exercise.
Ok Broomstick, my brother is schizophrenic and would require major support to be able to function in society and support himself, but it is possible. He graduated with honors from a good school and contracted the disease in his senior year. One of my best friends has a son who is mildly retarted. He can’t quite handle living on his own, but with support he can hold down a job and prosper.
Neither of these people has much in the way of resources available from the state. I believe many conservatives understand that people who cannot fully support themselves need some help from society. We all understand resources are limited. Should they be passed around to people who, judging from the postings on this message board, are reasonably intelligent people with problem solving skills? I believe that the great majority of resources we expend from tax dollars should go to people who were born or contracted disadvantages that leave them less able to function in society.
I was born into the lower middle class, lived a decade in pretty desperate poverty and I am doing OK. I think Sam is right in noting that most of the fiscal conservatives on this board followed a similar trajectory, giving us faith that other people can work their way through those problems as well.
This is some of the most cynical, disingenuous and self-contradictory bullshit I’ve seen on the boards.
All those jobs just waiting for some “responsible” person to appear. Yep, pick and choose and name your wage. Capital historically has existed at the mercy of the greedy worker.
What is the difference between cognitive dissonance and trolling?
I realize in your bizzare fantasy world there are two types of people. The multi-millionare owners of big bloated corrupt corporations like AIG or Enron and the nobel poor wage slaves beheld to them like serfs to their fuedal lord.
Of course the real world is nothing like that.
Sure some bosses are jerks or are incompetant. But for the most part, people are free to up and leave and find a new job whenever they don’t like it. Also, I find that 90% of the time, when people complain about the boss, it is because the boss is expecting them to show up to work on time and do their job well.
Because the average low level employee does not “contribute the most”. The entrepreneur who started the small business created the most. Your basic cashier works his or her 8 hour shift and goes home. The resturant owner is responsible for the entire operation of the business. His continued financial success depends on successfully managing a dozen employees who want nothing more than to do the least amount of work possible to collect a steady paycheck and will probably steal from him given the chance.
Right. That’s it. Because you should have the freedom to act like a irresponsible uneducated moron and society should still take care of you.
Because at the end of the day, once you have taken all the money you can from the entrepreneurs, small businessmen, and profitable corporations and driven them all off, who will the poor work for?
If my argument sounds one sided, it is because I firmly believe the default state is poor or destitute. Every service provided, every house, every item in that house, the food on your plate and the clothes on your back are all provided at the expense of someone elses labor. When you say that we should “help the poor”, you are saying those who are successful at building the economy and creating the goods and services that increase our standard of living now have an added obligation to distribute their wealth to other people whose wants and needs have outpaced the value of their labor. When I say we should “help the poor” I’m saying we should find ways to help them become more skilled or start small businesses so they can increase their value to the economy.
In other words, I want to teach them to fish, you want people like me to go catch the fish and then let you take as much as you want before I get to eat it.
So if I decide to live in the middle of Nevada desert, I get to complain that I’m “poor” because there is a lack of water services and no air conditioning?
Is your definition of “helping” the poor constrained by narrow-minded gestures such as dropping $10 (or $10000) in a Salvation Army collection bucket or volunteering at the soup kitchen?
Donations and philanthropy have limited multiplier effects. On the other hand, using creativity to innovate and invent tools, machinery, and increasing mankind’s knowledge of the world can help billions. It can be argued that Isaac Newton with his insights into mathematics helped the world much more than Mother Theresa. In 1900, you can volunteer 100 hours of your time to help fix your neighbor’s horse & carriage wheel or you can redirect those 100 hours to find a way to make a automobile more affordable for the masses.
Just because a person does not spend time hammering nails for Habitat for Humanity does not mean they are not helping the poor.
I am glad you asked that question! We of the Mother’s March Against Cognitive Dissonance recognize that Cognitive Dissonance is the number one threat to the Republic, and are united in our determination…hey, stop that! Quit shoving! Man, that is so uncool, this is a public Board and I…
I see, Ruminator! So, really, looked at in the right light, a rampant, grasping, vicious greed actually helps the poor attain a more comfortable level of destitution! As St. Gordon of Gecko said “Greed is good!” Is this the secret meaning of the Sermon on the Mount? Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day, teach him to fish, and you can sell him a fishing pole!
And I’ll say for the 10th time to all those low-level workers who believe they contribute the “most” … please prove that you contribute the “most” by starting your own company. If your work is 51% to 99% of the reason the company exists, then you can prove that mathematical fact by filing a form with the state to start your very own company. Prove to your previous boss and everyone else that you truly contributed the most to the company’s success.
But… this never happens.
Why is that?
Ok, don’t want to start your own company? Another way to prove you’ve contributed the most is to get a job offer from another company that pays YOU most of their profits. Obviously, that company trying to recruit you will recognize it is YOU and YOUR WORK CONTRIBUTION that matters the most so by logical extension, they will make a competing offer for you to leave your old job that’s underpaying you.
But… this also never happens.
Why is that?
Probably because it’s easier to SAY you contribute the most vs actually carrying out the ACTIONS that PROVE you contributed the most.
They’re called “strikes”. Rather more civil than they used to be, sometimes businessmen would hire special persuaders to advance their case and outline their premises. These were called “goons”. Vigorous exchanges of opinion often followed.
Alexander Graham Bell worked many hours to invent the telephone. This is a device even the poorest people in America take advantage of today.
Was Mr. Bell motivated by money? Sure. Was that “greed” or “evil”? Maybe… but doesn’t that also mean we as ultimate willing consumers of his invention are greedy and evil by extension?
I think it’s wrong and narrow-minded to think the volunteer at the soup kitchen is automatically elevated in morals above Mr. Bell. It’s wrong and simplistic to believe that the soup kitchen volunteer does more for society than Mr. Bell. I wouldn’t have wanted Mr. Bell to spend time in a soup kitchen; that’s not the most optimal use of his potential.
Strikes do no prove that the person and the person’s work are the most valuable; it simply proves (sometimes) that a disruption to the work is more financially damaging than a concession. If the person was truly the value-added component instead of the schedule disruption, there would be no such thing as scabs.
Ok, maybe you’re right. The Wal-Mart workers in Canada that wanted to form a labor union. Yep, since the workers contribute the most, Wal-Mart just folded under pressure and gave in. Oh wait, did I get that story wrong?
). At any rate, it would go back into the local economy very quickly.