He has a wife, you know...

And if the patricians don't start giving the plebeians more bread and less circus, they're gonna go all Spartacus on you ...

There is no way this is true.

We're also worse than what we call Banana Republics. There are countries run by corrupt dictators that are more fair than this country.

AH, ok, they are looking at what percentage of the population controlled what per cent of wealth. That's plausible.

I thought they were talking about the actual gap between wealthiest and poorest Romans, which would be a different story.

gilgigamesh: There is no way this is true.

Yes way, Ted!

/most non triumphant

How many Romans had refrigerators?

I wonder what the Roman equivalent of "plasma TVs" was.

gilgigamesh: There is no way this is true.

On pure math, it is. By percentage the balance of wealth in Rome was not as skewed as the modern USA. Yet, as many are pointing out, the quality of life differential between your average Roman Citizen at the peak of the Roman Empire (usually placed at the Nerva-Antonine dynasty) and contemporary America is vastly different. Also, the article says it takes into account the slave population of Rome, but as no one knows with any real accuracy what that population was, I find that dubious.

So, what does this even mean? As a political talking point it scores points for riling the base, as a genuine comparison it is essentially meaningless.

sigdiamond2000: I wonder what the Roman equivalent of "plasma TVs" was.
To give you an honest answer, slaves. A successful Middle Class Roman citizen considered the number of slaves they owned to be a mark of social status much in the same we use our vehicles or electronics. If one could afford to own and maintain slaves it meant they were financially secure if not exceedingly wealthy.

gilgigamesh: There is no way this is true.

Hell, slaves were almost treated better in Rome than the poor here in America. A well educated slave was highly valued, and that education came from their masters. Some of the greatest works of Rome come from slave writers. We don't value education here, and we seem to be doing everything we can to reduce education among the poor, not increase it.

sigdiamond2000: I wonder what the Roman equivalent of "plasma TVs" was.

Seats at a Gladiator event; in the Colosseum.

Ugh. Wealth defined by pure numbers is bunk. Quality of life is also a pretty damn important component that people conveniently leave out in arguments like this.

GAT_00: Hell, slaves were almost treated better in Rome than the poor here in America.


So much of that depends on what KIND of slave you are talking about. A Greek slave who is employed to teach a Patrician's children might live in relative luxury, a field slave might live in beastial conditions. Not that I am implying a moral distinction between the two, but Roman slavery was far more nuanced than chattel slavery in the American South. Even during our slavery period, house slaves were considered vastly differently than field slaves, some even staying on after the emancipation out of affection and loyalty to their former owners.

Well smack my ass and call me Proculus.

lordaction: Why should wealth be equal? The only way to do that is for the government to approve what you buy or sell as well as confiscating what people have worked for. That is tyranny.

In other news, someone actually thinks that suggesting the wealth divide be closer to Sweden than Zimbabwe is advocating absolute tyranny.

lordaction: Why should wealth be equal? The only way to do that is for the government to approve what you buy or sell as well as confiscating what people have worked for. That is tyranny.

On the other hand societies with great imbalances in wealth are breeding grounds for revolutions. (See France c.1789, Russian c.1918) The US remains stable because our standard of living is exceedingly high. The vast majority of the population has creature comforts, even if they are purchased on credit. We don't have revolutions because we have cars and televisions sets and food to eat. (Also because we have vast military with the ability to viciously put down rebellions.) I don't believe the argument is about redistributing wealth but how the system is constructed to concentrate wealth and power in the hands a incredibly small percentage of society.

Anyone know what the over/under is on idiots parroting the old "bow down before your corporate masters" OWS line in this thread?

/Including me that makes one...

FTFA: After analyzing papyri ledgers, biblical passages and other previous scholarly estimates,'

They somehow managed to miss making shiat up.

lordaction: Why should wealth be equal? The only way to do that is for the government to approve what you buy or sell as well as confiscating what people have worked for. That is tyranny.

Wealth shouldn't be equal. But it shouldn't be artificially unequal because the means to achieve wealth are unfair. I believe most Americans would be happy to compete as long as the rules are equitable and the playing field is level.

Oh, and we're still waiting for your description of that perfect job opportunity you mentioned yesterday before you bolted from the thread.

BillCo: FTFA: After analyzing papyri ledgers, biblical passages and other previous scholarly estimates,'

They somehow managed to miss making shiat up.

There is some of that in history, but historians like to call it "educated conjecture".

Diogenes: Wealth shouldn't be equal. But it shouldn't be artificially unequal because the means to achieve wealth are unfair.

star, heart, like

lordaction: And yeah I did bail on it as I was trying to do people a favor and instead all I got was liberal trolls.

All we asked for were the details.

Oh, that's right. Asking for details from conservatives is asking "gotcha" questions.

lordaction: If you are honestly interested I am looking for Certified Loan Originators and Realtors.

That's quite a bit different than the 'I offer anyone I see a $50,000/yr job.'

lordaction: Not really. I said if you worked hard you would make 50K+

Everyone that I meet that is unemployed/poor I offer a job too. Guess what, no takers ($50K+ a year).

GAT_00: lordaction: Not really. I said if you worked hard you would make 50K+

Everyone that I meet that is unemployed/poor I offer a job too. Guess what, no takers ($50K+ a year).

Same with the people I tried to hire but wanted to wait until their unemployment ran out. Starting wage of $20ph in friggin NM. I can't work for you yet. You'll mess up my unemployment. They are out there GAT.

lordaction: Why should wealth be equal? The only way to do that is for the government to approve what you buy or sell as well as confiscating what people have worked for. That is tyranny.

You must have missed the part of American History where a strong middle-class created the greatest nation in the world. There are no great nations with huge income inequalities.

HeadKase: They are out there GAT.

So, tax cuts for the rich?

lordaction: People just don't want to spend the time or effort to get licensed. (Lazy) You can do it online or in a classroom. Not that hard.

And it's free, right?

lordaction: Pastor of Muppets: lordaction: People just don't want to spend the time or effort to get licensed. (Lazy) You can do it online or in a classroom. Not that hard.

And it's free, right?

Around $600.

And you pay that for them, right?

lordaction: You are really reaching GAT. First, the title of the post was Poor is a choice. Second, you edited my post to leave off "People don't want to put the effort into what it takes not to be poor". That means hard work.

You said you offered it to anyone, and then changed it to anyone IF they have this. That's not the same or even close. My bad for pointing out a lie. If they need a license, then you're not going to take anyone, will you? So you're either lying by offering to everyone or you're lying about everyone turning you down because they don't want it.

HeadKase: They are out there GAT.

I didn't use universal statements like 'everyone I meet that is unemployed/poor I offer a job to.' Don't attack me for things I've never said.

GAT_00: lordaction: You are really reaching GAT. First, the title of the post was Poor is a choice. Second, you edited my post to leave off "People don't want to put the effort into what it takes not to be poor". That means hard work.

You said you offered it to anyone, and then changed it to anyone IF they have this. That's not the same or even close. My bad for pointing out a lie. If they need a license, then you're not going to take anyone, will you? So you're either lying by offering to everyone or you're lying about everyone turning you down because they don't want it.

HeadKase: They are out there GAT.

I didn't use universal statements like 'everyone I meet that is unemployed/poor I offer a job to.' Don't attack me for things I've never said.

Not an attack on you at all. It's just a way of life out here in NM unfortunately.

Sleeping Monkey: HeadKase: They are out there GAT.

So, tax cuts for the rich?

Good point. Never thought of that. Do you think it'll trickle down??

HeadKase: GAT_00: lordaction: You are really reaching GAT. First, the title of the post was Poor is a choice. Second, you edited my post to leave off "People don't want to put the effort into what it takes not to be poor". That means hard work.

You said you offered it to anyone, and then changed it to anyone IF they have this. That's not the same or even close. My bad for pointing out a lie. If they need a license, then you're not going to take anyone, will you? So you're either lying by offering to everyone or you're lying about everyone turning you down because they don't want it.

HeadKase: They are out there GAT.

I didn't use universal statements like 'everyone I meet that is unemployed/poor I offer a job to.' Don't attack me for things I've never said.

Not an attack on you at all. It's just a way of life out here in NM unfortunately.

People like you saying they'll hire anyone always make me laugh. I had nothing for a year and I never found any of you, and I was more than willing to move anywhere. I had to go back to school for anything and put myself further into debt.

HeadKase: Not an attack on you at all. It's just a way of life out here in NM unfortunately.

so you're offering $20/per hour... what was their previous salary? you realize that unemployment INSURANCE (yes, you pay into it) at best offers you 50% of your former pay.. and most states have it capped below that

in fact NYC has it capped at like $500/week - which is less than $20/hour iof they were on it for the entire year


do you see why this makes us skeptical?


now sure, there are total idiots who think "i'm getting paid for nothing!" and fail to account for the fact that they're loosing money by turning down the job. but then, they're idiots.