Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   Modern Poverty: Almost half of Public School students are now low-income ..... students from low-income families tend to end up parents of low-income families   (theatlantic.com) divider line 324
    More: Fail, income families, families tend, late-2000s recession, Texas District, poverty, families  
•       •       •

3173 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Oct 2013 at 10:32 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



324 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-18 08:58:00 AM  
I was a low income child...slowly making it up the ladder.
 
2013-10-18 10:35:51 AM  
30 years of stagnant wages, combined with rising costs. The top 1% controlling more wealth than any time in our nation's history. An economy designed to create service workers.

Are we supposed to be surprised that people are stuck in poverty?
 
2013-10-18 10:36:13 AM  
Land of opportunity to do exactly what your parents did and nothing else.
 
2013-10-18 10:36:44 AM  
If only it was possible to not have kids you can't provide for.
 
2013-10-18 10:37:05 AM  
The leading cause of poverty is...*drum roll*...POVERTY!  Who could have guessed that a system which requires a suffering underclass will tend to perpetuate that underclass?
 
2013-10-18 10:37:07 AM  
Clearly the solution to this is to use education dollars on vouchers.
 
2013-10-18 10:37:31 AM  
There's plenty of precedent in history for this separating out of classes (and castes).

RIP United States.
 
2013-10-18 10:37:41 AM  
www.betterthanpants.com If all you do is hope, you won't see any change
 
2013-10-18 10:38:21 AM  
heh! at NY what a dump, the only state in the north east with such a high poverty rate.
 
2013-10-18 10:38:46 AM  

The Muthaship: If only it was possible to not have kids you can't provide for.


hey now we can't punish poor women for having sex!  that's sexist!  why do you hate women?

/what some people on fark really believe.
 
2013-10-18 10:38:56 AM  
I blame No Child Left Behind, public schools now teach to the test, their only concerns are attendance and the test.  Private schools (the good ones not the derpy creationist Christian schools) are actually still teaching like Public schools did 30 years ago, so if parents have the means and opportunity they are pulling their kids out.

Get rid of NCLB and maybe we can get some decent public schools again.
 
2013-10-18 10:39:31 AM  
The more you give the more they take. Off the cliff we go.
 
2013-10-18 10:39:32 AM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Clearly the solution to this is to use education dollars on vouchers.


and use medicare dollars as vouchers.
 
2013-10-18 10:39:54 AM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Clearly the solution to this is to use education dollars on vouchers.


Vouchers are for a different problem. Where did that come from?
 
2013-10-18 10:40:04 AM  
So almost half of public school students are getting a completely free education subsidized by everyone else.  Not our fault they don't take advantage of it.

/Man, can you believe Mr. Teacher?  Making us be on time for class??  That's so stupid.
 
2013-10-18 10:40:47 AM  

Devo: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Clearly the solution to this is to use education dollars on vouchers.

and use medicare dollars as vouchers.


Yea, the US already spends more on medicare than education.
 
2013-10-18 10:40:56 AM  

BobCumbers: The more you give the more they take. Off the cliff we go.


Are you talking about cutting taxes for job creators?
 
2013-10-18 10:41:15 AM  

The Muthaship: If only it was possible to not have kids you can't provide for.


Sorry but it's just human nature for people to want to propagate the species.  Why do you hate human nature?
 
2013-10-18 10:41:37 AM  
i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-10-18 10:41:50 AM  
In America, that is.  Being "low income" as young parents of a young child is not unusual or unexpected.  Young people are the ones having kids (they're fertile after all) and young people are unlikely to be fully established in their careers yet - they are much more likely to have lower incomes, even if they're on a good career trajectory.  Furthermore, having a young child can frequently mean reduced work hours for one or both parents or even one parent not in the workforce at all which really craters income.

In the rest of the civilized modern industrialized wealthy countries of the world, this is just normal, and there's no reason to believe that the child will be starving, unhealthy, uneducated or deprived access to the tools needed to grow up to be successful.  The parents either, for that matter.

It's only in America where we appear to hate poor people and kick them in the teeth at every turn that this is true.  Assistance for food, rent, education, childcare is pathetic.  If you're working poor and you have a kid, you're farked.  If you're in a good career but raising a kid by yourself you're pretty farked too for that matter.
 
2013-10-18 10:42:21 AM  

shifty lookin bleeder: [i1.ytimg.com image 850x478]


Farking ditch diggers make good money driving backhoes these days.
 
2013-10-18 10:42:34 AM  

Tom_Slick: Get rid of NCLB and maybe we can get some decent public schools again.


What? The reason we have NCLB is because the public schools weren't doing well, especially with low income students.
 
2013-10-18 10:42:36 AM  

uber humper: [www.betterthanpants.com image 704x272] If all you do is hope, you won't see any change


This process of decline began more than 50 years ago, at the end of the Eisenhower presidency.
 
2013-10-18 10:42:38 AM  

The Muthaship: If only it was possible to not have kids you can't provide for.


So, since we have established the difficulty in moving up the social ladder, you are really saying that only those who are from good families should ever be able to reproduce? Maybe we can just sterilize the poor, but then we would only have one generation Wal-Mart employees. Can't have that!
 
2013-10-18 10:43:13 AM  
Simply require their parents to have higher incomes.  Then we can make sure that all the nation's schoolchildren are above average.
 
2013-10-18 10:43:55 AM  

uber humper: [www.betterthanpants.com image 704x272] If all you do is hope, you won't see any change


It's working great for the Blue states, but hey those Red states that refuse to give "Government Handouts" seem to be falling further and further behind. It's almost like in the 21st century we need our government to help us achieve success. That the "land of opportunity" is increasingly the "land of need an education".

I look at the map in the article and it corresponds very closely with how much aid states give to the poor. Those states that have liberal welfare policies have lowered poverty rates, high education rates, and better economies then states that don't.
 
2013-10-18 10:44:20 AM  
All of these happenings are merely sowing the seeds for socialist revolution in America. It will happen because there will be no other choice.

"Give us a child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever."
-Lenin
 
2013-10-18 10:44:49 AM  

cefm: It's only in America where we appear to hate poor people and kick them in the teeth at every turn that this is true.


Reciprocal altruism implies that voters will dislike giving money to the poor if, as in the United States, the poor are perceived as lazy. In contrast, Europeans overwhelmingly believe that the poor are poor because they have been unfortunate. This difference in views is part of what is sometimes referred to as "American exceptionalism." Link
 
2013-10-18 10:45:01 AM  

DrewCurtisJr: Tom_Slick: Get rid of NCLB and maybe we can get some decent public schools again.

What? The reason we have NCLB is because the public schools weren't doing well, especially with low income students.


Is it the low incomes or the students that are the problem?
Hint: Read TFA.

Testing isn't the solution to poor.
 
2013-10-18 10:45:25 AM  

DrewCurtisJr: Tom_Slick: Get rid of NCLB and maybe we can get some decent public schools again.

What? The reason we have NCLB is because the public schools weren't doing well, especially with low income students.


It was a good idea, but it didn't work. Look to Atlanta Public Schools.  Funding is tied up with that test so bad schools only teach the kids to pass the test.  So what we end up with is a bunch of kids who spend 12 years only learning how to take standardized tests.
 
2013-10-18 10:45:34 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: uber humper: [www.betterthanpants.com image 704x272] If all you do is hope, you won't see any change

This process of decline began more than 50 years ago, at the end of the Eisenhower presidency.


b-i.forbesimg.com

It's up an down
 
2013-10-18 10:46:36 AM  

uber humper: HotIgneous Intruder: uber humper: [www.betterthanpants.com image 704x272] If all you do is hope, you won't see any change

This process of decline began more than 50 years ago, at the end of the Eisenhower presidency.

[b-i.forbesimg.com image 400x242]

It's up an down


I blame Kennedy!
 
2013-10-18 10:47:04 AM  
But rich people are doing great. So there's that.
 
2013-10-18 10:47:34 AM  

GameSprocket: The Muthaship: If only it was possible to not have kids you can't provide for.

So, since we have established the difficulty in moving up the social ladder, you are really saying that only those who are from good families should ever be able to reproduce? Maybe we can just sterilize the poor, but then we would only have one generation Wal-Mart employees. Can't have that!


Yep, in this thread poor people in America are too poor to have kids.  In the next thread he will be saying that the American poor have it better than ever and they aren't really poor. Then a thread about the war on poverty will come up and he will say it was a total failure because we have so many poor people. These guys are all over the place with their talkingpoints, don't expect a coherent answer.
 
2013-10-18 10:47:59 AM  

uber humper: If all you do is hope, you won't see any change


Don't blame me, I voted for Ackerman.

/I wanted to live
 
2013-10-18 10:48:14 AM  
The important thing is that we have found someone to blame.
 
2013-10-18 10:48:18 AM  
haves have more and the have less have less
 
2013-10-18 10:48:18 AM  
This was predicted when I took anthropology in 1995.  I remember thinking it was kind of ridiculous and wouldn't happen.  Well, sadly, I was wrong.
 
2013-10-18 10:49:42 AM  

Headso: GameSprocket: The Muthaship: If only it was possible to not have kids you can't provide for.

So, since we have established the difficulty in moving up the social ladder, you are really saying that only those who are from good families should ever be able to reproduce? Maybe we can just sterilize the poor, but then we would only have one generation Wal-Mart employees. Can't have that!

Yep, in this thread poor people in America are too poor to have kids.  In the next thread he will be saying that the American poor have it better than ever and they aren't really poor. Then a thread about the war on poverty will come up and he will say it was a total failure because we have so many poor people. These guys are all over the place with their talkingpoints, don't expect a coherent answer.


If there was a War on Poverty why haven't their leaders been hung for treason and their minions sent to Gitmo?
 
2013-10-18 10:50:18 AM  

DrewCurtisJr: Tom_Slick: Get rid of NCLB and maybe we can get some decent public schools again.

What? The reason we have NCLB is because the public schools weren't doing well, especially with low income students.


Its a nessecary but not sufficient condition.
 
2013-10-18 10:50:32 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Is it the low incomes or the students that are the problem?
Hint: Read TFA.

Testing isn't the solution to poor.


didn't say it was, read the comments again.
 
2013-10-18 10:51:35 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: uber humper: [www.betterthanpants.com image 704x272] If all you do is hope, you won't see any change

It's working great for the Blue states, but hey those Red states that refuse to give "Government Handouts" seem to be falling further and further behind. It's almost like in the 21st century we need our government to help us achieve success. That the "land of opportunity" is increasingly the "land of need an education".

I look at the map in the article and it corresponds very closely with how much aid states give to the poor. Those states that have liberal welfare policies have lowered poverty rates, high education rates, and better economies then states that don't.



I agree about the education but we need to find a better way to handle welfare.

China just dropped our credit rating because we are financing debt with more debt.  There is a tipping point on how much we can spend. The gov is currently paying 2% on the debt, once that goes up to more realistic numbers, the welfare is gonna take huge a hit. It;s not sustainable.  And the rich don't have enough money to tax.
 
2013-10-18 10:51:41 AM  
This should be at every school:

i1.wp.com
 
2013-10-18 10:51:52 AM  

uber humper: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Clearly the solution to this is to use education dollars on vouchers.

Vouchers are for a different problem. Where did that come from?


Thread yesterday where southern states were gutting their education budgets in dollar-for-dollar vouchers for religious schools, one-liner snark.
 
2013-10-18 10:52:18 AM  

Tom_Slick: It was a good idea, but it didn't work.


didn't work? What do you mean by that?
 
2013-10-18 10:52:20 AM  

Ned Stark: DrewCurtisJr: Tom_Slick: Get rid of NCLB and maybe we can get some decent public schools again.

What? The reason we have NCLB is because the public schools weren't doing well, especially with low income students.

Its a nessecary but not sufficient condition.


You want to make the schools decent again? Bring back corporal punishment.
 
2013-10-18 10:52:53 AM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: uber humper: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Clearly the solution to this is to use education dollars on vouchers.

Vouchers are for a different problem. Where did that come from?

Thread yesterday where southern states were gutting their education budgets in dollar-for-dollar vouchers for religious schools, one-liner snark.


Gotcha, I didn't see it.
 
2013-10-18 10:52:56 AM  
That's okay... I just read we have the most richest people in America so we're all supposed to be grateful we live in such a utopia.
 
2013-10-18 10:53:19 AM  
Zero tolerance and teaching to the test, combined with other asinine policies assures that anyone who cares about their children will either send them to private school or home school them.
 
2013-10-18 10:53:31 AM  
Hey look! All the poorest states are also the states that keep voting AGAINST programs that would help them by voting FOR Republicans.

They may be poor and dumb, but they sure know how to wear pants on their heads!
 
2013-10-18 10:53:44 AM  

stuhayes2010: This was predicted when I took anthropology in 1995.  I remember thinking it was kind of ridiculous and wouldn't happen.  Well, sadly, I was wrong.


We're barreling towards our fifth consecutive decade of stagnant wages with virtually all gains in income going to the the richest echelons of the economy while costs have continued to rise. An increase in poor people is unavoidable.
 
2013-10-18 10:53:46 AM  

RedPhoenix122: I was a low income child...slowly making it up the ladder.


I was too, the 80's.  Things really turned around in the 90s.

I make a very good living these days, but both my parents demanded I do well and helped me do well in school.
 
2013-10-18 10:53:53 AM  
 
2013-10-18 10:54:42 AM  

FarkedOver: This should be at every school:

[i1.wp.com image 500x714]


If you believe that shiat, you've bought yourself a wasted life.  If you want to help society, learn some skills and pitch into the economy --  otherwise, you're a drag
 
2013-10-18 10:54:49 AM  
i.qkme.me
 
2013-10-18 10:55:04 AM  

uber humper: [www.betterthanpants.com image 704x272] If all you do is hope, you won't see any change


Pretty good so far. No pre-existing condition clauses... no senseless wars... using science rather than mysticism to solve problems. Things are looking up a bit.
 
2013-10-18 10:55:18 AM  
You know, the thing only really said the 2008 recession really kicked our asses.

Like seriously, SERIOUSLY kicked our asses.
 
2013-10-18 10:55:25 AM  

generallyso: We're barreling towards our fifth consecutive decade of stagnant wages with virtually all gains in income going to the the richest echelons of the economy while costs have continued to rise.


But we can't do anything that might affect the rich in even the smallest way! Why that'd be class warfare.
 
2013-10-18 10:55:36 AM  

GameSprocket: The Muthaship: If only it was possible to not have kids you can't provide for.

So, since we have established the difficulty in moving up the social ladder, you are really saying that only those who are from good families should ever be able to reproduce? Maybe we can just sterilize the poor, but then we would only have one generation Wal-Mart employees. Can't have that!


People who make bad decisions tend to a) be poor, and b) be less responsible with birth control?
 
2013-10-18 10:56:10 AM  

uber humper: If you believe that shiat, you've bought yourself a wasted life. If you want to help society, learn some skills and pitch into the economy -- otherwise, you're a drag


Well reasoned argument.  I applaud you.
 
2013-10-18 10:56:32 AM  

GameSprocket: The Muthaship: If only it was possible to not have kids you can't provide for.

So, since we have established the difficulty in moving up the social ladder, you are really saying that only those who are from good families should ever be able to reproduce? Maybe we can just sterilize the poor, but then we would only have one generation Wal-Mart employees. Can't have that!


On the contrary.  It's how England became the first country in the history of the world, basically, to not be a gigantic cauldron of misery.

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/08/demography-and-fast-evolution.h tm l
 
2013-10-18 10:56:57 AM  
I don't know what 'low income' in the US is, but on the surface, statistically, having a population with 50% 'low income' doesn't seem too alarming in itself.
 
2013-10-18 10:56:57 AM  
Of all developed countries the US has the lowest rate of social mobility.  The rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor.  The US as meritocracy is a lie.
 
2013-10-18 10:57:17 AM  

uber humper: [www.betterthanpants.com image 704x272] If all you do is hope, you won't see any change


Mmmm, funny how the article's maps paint a dismal picture of poverty levels in states that mostly are run by Republicans, i.e. Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolia, Florida, etc.

/I would hope voters based their choices on who & what is best for themselves and their country.
//I try to change the minds of those voters who'd rather shoot themselves in the head rather than vote Democrat.
 
2013-10-18 10:57:24 AM  
As my old man used to say: "The curse of the poor is its poverty"
 
2013-10-18 10:57:36 AM  

FarkedOver: uber humper: If you believe that shiat, you've bought yourself a wasted life. If you want to help society, learn some skills and pitch into the economy -- otherwise, you're a drag

Well reasoned argument.  I applaud you.


I'll pitch you some food, someday.  Be nice.
 
2013-10-18 10:57:40 AM  
The reasons why are both complicated and familiar. In an interview with the Post, one of the study's authors pointed to the "2008 recession, immigration and a high birthrate among low-income families," as factors. The changes were happening before the economy collapsed, but the bust exacerbated them.

I know the proper thing is to find an easy ideological solution but these factors make it very hard. (Except on fark.)
 
2013-10-18 10:59:33 AM  
We have to wait for the one thing that seems to ever solves our problems... technology. I'm not sure why it is taking so long to integrate fun computer games kids will love to play into education. I imagine there is a lot of push back from the stale educational establishment that will keep insisting that education be tedious and horrible.
 
2013-10-18 11:00:32 AM  

The Muthaship: If only it was possible to not have kids you can't provide for.


It's possible, but it's very difficult, based on the way our hormonal physiology has evolved.
 
2013-10-18 11:01:18 AM  

uber humper: FarkedOver: uber humper: If you believe that shiat, you've bought yourself a wasted life. If you want to help society, learn some skills and pitch into the economy -- otherwise, you're a drag

Well reasoned argument.  I applaud you.

I'll pitch you some food, someday.  Be nice.


Pitching into the economy, as you have said I should do, what does that mean? That we should work harder even though our wages have flat lined.  We should work longer so we can have more take home pay to keep our heads above water.  Capitalism is bullshiat.  Cooperation is the only way we can and the only way we will succeed as a planet.  Get used to it.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-18 11:02:10 AM  
upl.co
 
2013-10-18 11:02:25 AM  

hitlersbrain: We have to wait for the one thing that seems to ever solves our problems... technology. I'm not sure why it is taking so long to integrate fun computer games kids will love to play into education. I imagine there is a lot of push back from the stale educational establishment that will keep insisting that education be tedious and horrible.


The education system trains us for the tedious and horrible-ness that is working.  That is educations function. Prepare us to be good little workers.
 
2013-10-18 11:02:51 AM  

shifty lookin bleeder: [i1.ytimg.com image 850x478]


On a different note, anyone else noticed those breastesses in the background?
 
2013-10-18 11:03:26 AM  
Everybody is free to temp for 1974 wages because ... FREEDOM.

/Fark all ya'll and your service economy.
 
2013-10-18 11:03:51 AM  
Never underestimate Farkers' eagerness to punch down.
 
2013-10-18 11:05:11 AM  
Hey waity a minute, did not LBJ and the Democrats say that spending on the Great Society, and declaring "War on Poverty," would eliminate this problem!  Sixteen trillion later I am still reading articles like this and listening to ads about one in eight children are hungry.  Holy Shiat and now we turned over Healthcare to these Bozo's.
 
2013-10-18 11:06:09 AM  
There is a statistic that nearly every poor kid has at least one poor parent. Very disturbing.
 
2013-10-18 11:09:23 AM  
Fact 1: Stupid people tend to be poorer than smart people

Fact 2: stupid people are more likely to have stupid kids than smart people

Fact 3: stupid kids grow up to be stupid adults that, surprise surprise, tend to be poorer than smart adults.

Why is any of this in any way surprising?
 
2013-10-18 11:10:12 AM  
If we'd stop using mostly local funding for public schools, we'd go a long way toward solving our horribly inequitable public school system. Of course I doubt that will ever happen in most states. The suburbanites with the money have power and a vested interest in making sure their kids have the best funded public schools (if they don't send their kids to private schools). Fark those poor people in the inner city.
 
2013-10-18 11:10:15 AM  

2xcited: Hey waity a minute, did not LBJ and the Democrats say that spending on the Great Society, and declaring "War on Poverty," would eliminate this problem!  Sixteen trillion later I am still reading articles like this and listening to ads about one in eight children are hungry.  Holy Shiat and now we turned over Healthcare to these Bozo's.


Yes privatize the shiat out of everything.  We can grin and bear it while we're getting fisted by invisible hand of the free market as our corporate overlords laugh and kick us while we're down.  Good idea.
 
2013-10-18 11:11:05 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Fact 1: Stupid people tend to be poorer than smart people

Fact 2: stupid people are more likely to have stupid kids than smart people

Fact 3: stupid kids grow up to be stupid adults that, surprise surprise, tend to be poorer than smart adults.


Fact 4: Stupid people tend to be conservative.

Why is any of this in any way surprising?

You forgot one.  FTFY.
 
2013-10-18 11:11:39 AM  
Yet another good reason to not send your child to public school of you care about their safety. All children can be evil shiats, but the evil that poor children do tends to be of the violent nature.
 
2013-10-18 11:11:53 AM  
Unfortunately, your success in school IS CORRELATED TO what your parents earn.

I don't think schools give kids bad grades because they are poor as the author states in the second sentence. Leading off your article with an erroneous supposition means you're wasting your time writing anything afterwards & leads me to not read it.
 
2013-10-18 11:12:22 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Fact 1: Stupid people tend to be poorer than smart people

Fact 2: stupid people are more likely to have stupid kids than smart people

Fact 3: stupid kids grow up to be stupid adults that, surprise surprise, tend to be poorer than smart adults.

Why is any of this in any way surprising?


Yeah... it's knida like... Darwin-ish.
 
2013-10-18 11:12:41 AM  

GameSprocket: The Muthaship: If only it was possible to not have kids you can't provide for.

So, since we have established the difficulty in moving up the social ladder, you are really saying that only those who are from good families should ever be able to reproduce? Maybe we can just sterilize the poor, but then we would only have one generation Wal-Mart employees. Can't have that!


It'll work out fine, eventually we Morlocks will eat the Eloi, we will get our revenge in the future.
 
2013-10-18 11:12:43 AM  

uber humper: Slaves2Darkness: uber humper: [www.betterthanpants.com image 704x272] If all you do is hope, you won't see any change

It's working great for the Blue states, but hey those Red states that refuse to give "Government Handouts" seem to be falling further and further behind. It's almost like in the 21st century we need our government to help us achieve success. That the "land of opportunity" is increasingly the "land of need an education".

I look at the map in the article and it corresponds very closely with how much aid states give to the poor. Those states that have liberal welfare policies have lowered poverty rates, high education rates, and better economies then states that don't.


I agree about the education but we need to find a better way to handle welfare.

China just dropped our credit rating because we are financing debt with more debt.  There is a tipping point on how much we can spend. The gov is currently paying 2% on the debt, once that goes up to more realistic numbers, the welfare is gonna take huge a hit. It;s not sustainable.  And the rich don't have enough money to tax.


It's a good thing welfare is the only item on the budget we could possibly be wasting money on.

I wonder if we cut defense spending to only 25% of the budget and contented ourselves with only having the most expensive military in the world instead of the galaxy how much welfare and tax cuts we could afford...
 
2013-10-18 11:13:30 AM  

2xcited: Hey waity a minute, did not LBJ and the Democrats say that spending on the Great Society, and declaring "War on Poverty," would eliminate this problem!  Sixteen trillion later I am still reading articles like this and listening to ads about one in eight children are hungry.  Holy Shiat and now we turned over Healthcare to these Bozo's.


I thought 99.6% of poor people own a refrigerator and poor people aren't really poor so they should get some skin in the game and pay more in taxes?
 
2013-10-18 11:13:53 AM  

2xcited: Hey waity a minute, did not LBJ and the Democrats say that spending on the Great Society, and declaring "War on Poverty," would eliminate this problem!  Sixteen trillion later I am still reading articles like this and listening to ads about one in eight children are hungry.  Holy Shiat and now we turned over Healthcare to these Bozo's.




It might have, except some bozos like Reagan, Bush, W Bush had pretty much dismantled all of that. Oh they also set up systems like vouchers and charter schools. Guess who can't go to those? Poor people.
 
2013-10-18 11:15:14 AM  
I wonder if they actually checked to confirm if those people are poor.


Illinois just discovered that over 50% of the Medicaid claims they paid out were paid to people who are ineligible for Medicaid.

It seems that government workers took people at their word and never checked.

A couple months back they even had the kids of $175k a year assemblymen collecting free school lunches because they cheated the system and claimed they were poor.
 
2013-10-18 11:15:40 AM  

Headso: I thought 99.6% of poor people own a refrigerator and poor people aren't really poor so they should get some skin in the game and pay more in taxes?


Technically they don't own the refrigerator.  Poor people are more inclined to rent and a refrigerator is provided to the tenant by the landlord.  I think the proper way to say it would be 99.6% of poor people have access to a refrigerator.
 
2013-10-18 11:16:00 AM  

hitlersbrain: We have to wait for the one thing that seems to ever solves our problems... technology. I'm not sure why it is taking so long to integrate fun computer games kids will love to play into education. I imagine there is a lot of push back from the stale educational establishment that will keep insisting that education be tedious and horrible.


They exist, my kids use them

Starfall.com is awesome for learning the alphabet and learning to read.

They have some fun math games as well on other sites.
 
2013-10-18 11:16:42 AM  
It's expensive to be poor in America.
 
2013-10-18 11:16:49 AM  

patrick767: If we'd stop using mostly local funding for public schools, we'd go a long way toward solving our horribly inequitable public school system. Of course I doubt that will ever happen in most states. The suburbanites with the money have power and a vested interest in making sure their kids have the best funded public schools (if they don't send their kids to private schools). Fark those poor people in the inner city.


There was a PBS show a few years back on education and poverty that showed money spent in inner cities and very poor rural areas did not go as far as the same amount spent in more affluent areas. Teachers cost more to keep, books and supplies were more difficult to attain per student for the same price, administrative salaries were through the roof, the tech equipment fell into disrepair more quickly. Money is a problem, but there are culture and community issues that may have more of an impact overall on education that needs to be addressed first.
 
2013-10-18 11:17:54 AM  

FarkedOver: uber humper: FarkedOver: uber humper: If you believe that shiat, you've bought yourself a wasted life. If you want to help society, learn some skills and pitch into the economy -- otherwise, you're a drag

Well reasoned argument.  I applaud you.

I'll pitch you some food, someday.  Be nice.

Pitching into the economy, as you have said I should do, what does that mean? That we should work harder even though our wages have flat lined.  We should work longer so we can have more take home pay to keep our heads above water.  Capitalism is bullshiat.  Cooperation is the only way we can and the only way we will succeed as a planet.  Get used to it.

[i.imgur.com image 800x800]


If you don't have skills, a communist society won't want you either. The US is still one of the easiest countries to start a business and work for yourself.

If all you do is drink vodka and listen to music, instead of learning, you are a drag on wherever you are. What are people like that good for? Knowledge is practically free.  You're on the Internet, use it!
 
2013-10-18 11:17:54 AM  
I grew up with a criminal alcoholic mom, went days at a time w/out a meal, spent some time living in a broken down Oldsmobile. I went to some crappy schools, but had to be self-motivated and was always challenging myself in math/science. Somehow, I now have 1st world problems (build vs. buy outdoor pizza oven for the upcoming kitchen & pool)

I feel like I got in (generationally) before that door shut, and the stream of class climbers in the 90s has slowed to a trickle. It's very awkward being the only one in my extended family to transcend poverty, but I am thankful, and I try to be generous.
 
2013-10-18 11:18:00 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Fact 1: Stupid people tend to be poorer than smart people

Fact 2: stupid people are more likely to have stupid kids than smart people

Fact 3: stupid kids grow up to be stupid adults that, surprise surprise, tend to be poorer than smart adults.

Why is any of this in any way surprising?


The surprising thing is your facts aren't even really true.

People with 140 IQ scores (a score of 100 is average) missed payments and maxed-out their credit cards more often than their lower IQ counterparts. They went bankrupt at a rate, 14.1%, close to the rate of people with an IQ of 80, 15.2%. "Only among people slightly above-average does an increasing IQ score lead to a reduced chance of financial distress," says the study. "The survey provides no data to explain why this occurs," but Zagorsky offers these explanations for High IQ types getting into financial hot water:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2007-0 8- 12-smart-not-rich_N.htm
 
2013-10-18 11:18:24 AM  
I blame the manufacturing jobs going overseas, was a time when a person could get a fairly good paying job with just a high school education and a little training.
 
2013-10-18 11:18:36 AM  

patrick767: If we'd stop using mostly local funding for public schools, we'd go a long way toward solving our horribly inequitable public school system. Of course I doubt that will ever happen in most states. The suburbanites with the money have power and a vested interest in making sure their kids have the best funded public schools (if they don't send their kids to private schools). Fark those poor people in the inner city.


They have been doing that for decades in NJ. It is called an Abbott School District, they take money from all over NJ to fund their schools, not just local revenue. They receive the most money per student in the state with wealthier districts getting sometimes 5k less per student. Last I checked Camden was at 22k per student.

It hasn't helped.

The culture of baby daddies and single parents and 4 year olds hanging out on street corners at 2am is probably more to blame than revenue.
 
2013-10-18 11:18:51 AM  

Headso: GameSprocket: The Muthaship: If only it was possible to not have kids you can't provide for.

So, since we have established the difficulty in moving up the social ladder, you are really saying that only those who are from good families should ever be able to reproduce? Maybe we can just sterilize the poor, but then we would only have one generation Wal-Mart employees. Can't have that!

Yep, in this thread poor people in America are too poor to have kids.  In the next thread he will be saying that the American poor have it better than ever and they aren't really poor. Then a thread about the war on poverty will come up and he will say it was a total failure because we have so many poor people. These guys are all over the place with their talkingpoints, don't expect a coherent answer.


Fun additional fact, the well educated tend to have less kids. Solution? Provide quality education to all.
 
2013-10-18 11:18:58 AM  

tricycleracer: It's expensive to be poor in America.


More than once I've heard the sentiment "I'm too poor to shop at Walmart, because that shiat falls apart all the time, and I cannot afford to be replacing stuff all the time"
 
2013-10-18 11:20:11 AM  

Headso: 2xcited: Hey waity a minute, did not LBJ and the Democrats say that spending on the Great Society, and declaring "War on Poverty," would eliminate this problem!  Sixteen trillion later I am still reading articles like this and listening to ads about one in eight children are hungry.  Holy Shiat and now we turned over Healthcare to these Bozo's.

I thought 99.6% of poor people own a refrigerator and poor people aren't really poor so they should get some skin in the game and pay more in taxes?


Well, while the fact that 249 out of every 250 people living in poverty have a refridgerators is certainly indicative of how much better off the poor of today have it relative to previous generations, it's somewhat irrelevant to the fact that more people need to pay tax and get some skin in the game.
 
2013-10-18 11:20:13 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: HotIgneous Intruder: 2xcited: All men are CREATED equal.  However the choices we make while exercising our freedom of choice, seperate people.  You choose to have children you cannot support, and then rely upon the government, then your choices, opportunity and freedom become limited by the choices YOU made.  I know many people that came from hellish circumstances that are considered prosperous and sucessfull.  You have the righti to Freedom of Choice, but realize poor freedom of choice has consequences and the goverment can only go so far in susidizing your poor freedom of choice.

Still being poor in America would make you a rich man in most countries.

"As soon es I sets the DVR to Moesha, wes cans goes down to Wal-Mart and use the EBTeeze. Let's me go calls up Freds on the free cell phone Obama gots me and see if he wants to come along."

Ronald Reagan instituted the freedom phones, sparky.

Reagan provided free cell phones? Holy shiat, he was way ahead of his time.




No dummy, the whole deal started with land lines and ended up including cell phones-because no one uses Land Lines.
 
2013-10-18 11:20:33 AM  

Fissile: Of all developed countries the US has the lowest rate of social mobility.  The rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor.  The US as meritocracy is a lie.


Funny, I grew up poor as a military brat.  Now I'm not poor.  Funny how getting a career type job can fix that.
 
2013-10-18 11:20:34 AM  
One thing my wife and I sort of argue about is what we're going to do for school when our three year old (and later on our 4 month old_ gets a bit older. We happily live a few blocks outside of the unaccredited Kansas City district and our district seems to be about average, but she's leaning towards sending our kids to a private school, even if it means that means a religious school, while I'd really rather have our girls in public school. The notion of middle class families, and, yeah, white families, pulling their kids out of urban public schools and putting them in private, suburban schools, always bothers me, as I think having involved and interested parents who are genuinely concerned about their childs education matters more than just "where" a child winds up.

But on the flip side, all the private schools around here just look "better" by each metric, and as a parent, you want the best for your kids.

I dunno. As a product of private, religious schools up until my sophmore year of highschool, when I made it clear to my parents I absolutely hated every aspect of private school, I'm really, really pushing to keep our kids in the public school system, but it's hard to really fault her for wanting our kids to go to the best available school, even if it means paying out of pocket and trying to figure out how to explain to them whey we don't acutally do any of the religious stuff school says to do.

tl;dr, sucks that public school systems are largely in shambles
 
2013-10-18 11:21:55 AM  
The article says immigrants and poor have higher birthrates, this is why you'd then expect the poor population to climb vs the middle class or wealthy population.

The implication is clear.  People without much going on in their lives will have more kids, it's one thing they can do and control.  A flat broke guy can have sex with as many women as possible and get many of them pregnant, and in that way he's 'successful' at something.   He's leaving a legacy just as much as the guy working in a professional career.

That, in my opinion, is the reason the country can't afford to turn its back on parts of its own population.  When the system locks a group of people out of the mainstream and they are left out there to do their own thing, they will.  It may not be what society wants, needs, or expects though.
 
2013-10-18 11:22:26 AM  

Tom_Slick: DrewCurtisJr: Tom_Slick: Get rid of NCLB and maybe we can get some decent public schools again.

What? The reason we have NCLB is because the public schools weren't doing well, especially with low income students.

It was a good idea, but it didn't work. Look to Atlanta Public Schools.  Funding is tied up with that test so bad schools only teach the kids to pass the test.  So what we end up with is a bunch of kids who spend 12 years only learning how to take standardized tests.


Part of the problem with schools in Atlanta, and I'd know because I used to live there, is that North Fulton County is where all the money is.  South Fulton County gets shafted, in regards to tax dollars, and thus their schools are always far below those that exist in places like Alpharetta, Sandy Springs, and Dunwoody.  SAT scores are consistently much lower, graduation rates are a hell of a lot lower.....it's not pretty.
 
2013-10-18 11:22:33 AM  
uber humper: (1) If you don't have skills, a communist society won't want you either. (2) The US is still one of the easiest countries to start a business and work for yourself.

(3) If all you do is drink vodka and listen to music
, (4) instead of learning, you are a drag on wherever you are. What are people like that good for? (5) Knowledge is practically free. You're on the Internet, use it!


(1) Bullshiat.  They will teach you the skills.  Most socialist revolutions happened in areas that didn't have an industrial presence.  They had to teach peasants the skills to operate the machinery.

(2) That must be why most business fail in their first year of operation! So easy even an idiot can do it!

(3) Nothing wrong with either of those activities.

(4) I'm not advocating that we stop learning..... But you can believe that if you wish.

(5) Thank you internet for all the knowledge! Truly the internet is a capitalist success story... ohhh wait it was a government funded project by DARPA.... woops.
 
2013-10-18 11:23:21 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: HotIgneous Intruder: 2xcited: All men are CREATED equal.  However the choices we make while exercising our freedom of choice, seperate people.  You choose to have children you cannot support, and then rely upon the government, then your choices, opportunity and freedom become limited by the choices YOU made.  I know many people that came from hellish circumstances that are considered prosperous and sucessfull.  You have the righti to Freedom of Choice, but realize poor freedom of choice has consequences and the goverment can only go so far in susidizing your poor freedom of choice.

Still being poor in America would make you a rich man in most countries.

"As soon es I sets the DVR to Moesha, wes cans goes down to Wal-Mart and use the EBTeeze. Let's me go calls up Freds on the free cell phone Obama gots me and see if he wants to come along."

Ronald Reagan instituted the freedom phones, sparky.

Reagan provided free cell phones? Holy shiat, he was way ahead of his time.



No dummy, the whole deal started with land lines and ended up including cell phones-because no one uses Land Lines.


I know plenty of people who use land lines. Of course, they pay for them.
 
2013-10-18 11:23:22 AM  

The Muthaship: If only it was possible to not have kids you can't provide for.


This is the exact reason we stopped at two: we can educate them, entertain them, spoil them a little, spoil ourselves a lot, pay for college without debt, and our only debt is a mortgage. People are ignorant though, most don't even consider the future til it is too late....

And I don't believe poor parents make poor kids. My parents grew up dirt poor, hated it, and worked their asses off to not be poor anymore--and they are well-off now. My husband grew up poor too--and he worked his ass off to get out of there, and we are definitely doing well. People who are stuck in the cycle are too lazy or too ignorant to change the pattern, and both of those things can be rectified.
 
2013-10-18 11:23:26 AM  
And they grow up to vote Democrat, which means more of them will be on welfare, making more babies, more votes..... pretty cunning plan by Dems, keep the people down and dependent.
 
2013-10-18 11:23:50 AM  

cig-mkr: I blame the manufacturing jobs going overseas, was a time when a person could get a fairly good paying job with just a high school education and a little training.


I really have to agree with you. It used to be if you had issues with book education at a university, trade and manufacturing jobs filled the need. That world is completely changed now. Now, there is an expectation that everyone is good with books. A lot of people I know are so much better working with their hands, but it can't be translated into good employment anywhere.
 
2013-10-18 11:24:11 AM  

Headso: Debeo Summa Credo: Fact 1: Stupid people tend to be poorer than smart people

Fact 2: stupid people are more likely to have stupid kids than smart people

Fact 3: stupid kids grow up to be stupid adults that, surprise surprise, tend to be poorer than smart adults.

Why is any of this in any way surprising?

The surprising thing is your facts aren't even really true.

People with 140 IQ scores (a score of 100 is average) missed payments and maxed-out their credit cards more often than their lower IQ counterparts. They went bankrupt at a rate, 14.1%, close to the rate of people with an IQ of 80, 15.2%. "Only among people slightly above-average does an increasing IQ score lead to a reduced chance of financial distress," says the study. "The survey provides no data to explain why this occurs," but Zagorsky offers these explanations for High IQ types getting into financial hot water:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2007-0 8- 12-smart-not-rich_N.htm


Are you seriously trying to argue that smarter people don't tend to make more money than less intelligent people?
 
2013-10-18 11:24:28 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Headso: 2xcited: Hey waity a minute, did not LBJ and the Democrats say that spending on the Great Society, and declaring "War on Poverty," would eliminate this problem!  Sixteen trillion later I am still reading articles like this and listening to ads about one in eight children are hungry.  Holy Shiat and now we turned over Healthcare to these Bozo's.

I thought 99.6% of poor people own a refrigerator and poor people aren't really poor so they should get some skin in the game and pay more in taxes?

Well, while the fact that 249 out of every 250 people living in poverty have a refridgerators is certainly indicative of how much better off the poor of today have it relative to previous generations, it's somewhat irrelevant to the fact that more people need to pay tax and get some skin in the game.


the narrative is that it isn't irrelevant, you think fox news pushes that talkingpoint to make a benign comment about the fact that the human race has made advancements in technology over hundreds and thousands of years?
 
2013-10-18 11:24:30 AM  

Thunderpipes: And they grow up to vote Democrat, which means more of them will be on welfare, making more babies, more votes..... pretty cunning plan by Dems, keep the people down and dependent.


Smart take.
 
2013-10-18 11:24:34 AM  

cig-mkr: I blame the manufacturing jobs going overseas, was a time when a person could get a fairly good paying job with just a high school education and a little training.


What's really bad is there are a lot of cities that are still trying to get those jobs back here.  They're not coming back, and if they DO come back, they are automated.

Hell, even apple sorting has been automated.

I may write computer software, but a good amount of my time is spent filling out paperwork for management.

Paper pushing is the job of tomorrow.
 
2013-10-18 11:25:08 AM  

meat0918: tricycleracer: It's expensive to be poor in America.

More than once I've heard the sentiment "I'm too poor to shop at Walmart, because that shiat falls apart all the time, and I cannot afford to be replacing stuff all the time"


Check out the rent-to-own tire industry.

1.  Need tires to get to work or you'll lose your job.
2.  Get rent to own tires since you can't afford an all cash deal.
3.  Pay 10x what the tires actually cost.
 
2013-10-18 11:26:59 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Thunderpipes: And they grow up to vote Democrat, which means more of them will be on welfare, making more babies, more votes..... pretty cunning plan by Dems, keep the people down and dependent.

Smart take.


For his logic to be even remotely true, that would mean the South is a bastion of Democratic politicians....
 
2013-10-18 11:27:42 AM  

Koodz: uber humper: Slaves2Darkness: uber humper: [www.betterthanpants.com image 704x272] If all you do is hope, you won't see any change

It's working great for the Blue states, but hey those Red states that refuse to give "Government Handouts" seem to be falling further and further behind. It's almost like in the 21st century we need our government to help us achieve success. That the "land of opportunity" is increasingly the "land of need an education".

I look at the map in the article and it corresponds very closely with how much aid states give to the poor. Those states that have liberal welfare policies have lowered poverty rates, high education rates, and better economies then states that don't.


I agree about the education but we need to find a better way to handle welfare.

China just dropped our credit rating because we are financing debt with more debt.  There is a tipping point on how much we can spend. The gov is currently paying 2% on the debt, once that goes up to more realistic numbers, the welfare is gonna take huge a hit. It;s not sustainable.  And the rich don't have enough money to tax.

It's a good thing welfare is the only item on the budget we could possibly be wasting money on.

I wonder if we cut defense spending to only 25% of the budget and contented ourselves with only having the most expensive military in the world instead of the galaxy how much welfare and tax cuts we could afford...


I keep hearing this argument over and over - but those that make this suggestion seem to forget one thing: how many people will be put out of work by cutting defense spending by X%...? And how about all those people who depend upon those workers getting a paycheck?

Dislike the military all you want ... but they actually employ (directly and indirectly) millions of people who produce something. And that's not even taking into account the multitude of civilian products that have been created as a result of items that were originally produced by the manufacturer's supplying equipment to the military.

Throwing more money at things that are non-productive, won't suddenly make them so.
 
2013-10-18 11:27:56 AM  

meat0918: cig-mkr: I blame the manufacturing jobs going overseas, was a time when a person could get a fairly good paying job with just a high school education and a little training.

What's really bad is there are a lot of cities that are still trying to get those jobs back here.  They're not coming back, and if they DO come back, they are automated.

Hell, even apple sorting has been automated.

I may write computer software, but a good amount of my time is spent filling out paperwork for management.

Paper pushing is the job of tomorrow.


Heh. One of my first jobs in the 80s was working on a paperless system to get the office ready for the tech of tomorrow. I now work in an office with more computers AND paper than we had back then. Progress!
 
2013-10-18 11:28:22 AM  

tricycleracer: meat0918: tricycleracer: It's expensive to be poor in America.

More than once I've heard the sentiment "I'm too poor to shop at Walmart, because that shiat falls apart all the time, and I cannot afford to be replacing stuff all the time"

Check out the rent-to-own tire industry.

1.  Need tires to get to work or you'll lose your job.
2.  Get rent to own tires since you can't afford an all cash deal.
3.  Pay 10x what the tires actually cost.


Rent to own TIRES?!?!!??!??!

I'm.......

goddamnit, wtf?
 
2013-10-18 11:29:16 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Well, while the fact that 249 out of every 250 people living in poverty have a refridgerators is certainly indicative of how much better off the poor of today have it relative to previous generations, it's somewhat irrelevant to the fact that more people need to pay tax and get some skin in the game.


Careful there. If you pack that shiat in any tighter, you might create a derp singularity.
 
2013-10-18 11:29:19 AM  

Yeah_Right: how many people will be put out of work by cutting defense spending by X%...? And how about all those people who depend upon those workers getting a paycheck?

Dislike the military all you want ... but they actually employ (directly and indirectly) millions of people who produce something.


Defense spending is capital intensive, not labor intensive. If creating jobs is the goal, there are more effective ways to spend that money.
 
2013-10-18 11:29:24 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Headso: Debeo Summa Credo: Fact 1: Stupid people tend to be poorer than smart people

Fact 2: stupid people are more likely to have stupid kids than smart people

Fact 3: stupid kids grow up to be stupid adults that, surprise surprise, tend to be poorer than smart adults.

Why is any of this in any way surprising?

The surprising thing is your facts aren't even really true.

People with 140 IQ scores (a score of 100 is average) missed payments and maxed-out their credit cards more often than their lower IQ counterparts. They went bankrupt at a rate, 14.1%, close to the rate of people with an IQ of 80, 15.2%. "Only among people slightly above-average does an increasing IQ score lead to a reduced chance of financial distress," says the study. "The survey provides no data to explain why this occurs," but Zagorsky offers these explanations for High IQ types getting into financial hot water:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2007-0 8- 12-smart-not-rich_N.htm

Are you seriously trying to argue that smarter people don't tend to make more money than less intelligent people?


the study is making the argument that intelligence and wealth are not 

Debeo Summa Credo: Headso: Debeo Summa Credo: Fact 1: Stupid people tend to be poorer than smart people

Fact 2: stupid people are more likely to have stupid kids than smart people

Fact 3: stupid kids grow up to be stupid adults that, surprise surprise, tend to be poorer than smart adults.

Why is any of this in any way surprising?

The surprising thing is your facts aren't even really true.

People with 140 IQ scores (a score of 100 is average) missed payments and maxed-out their credit cards more often than their lower IQ counterparts. They went bankrupt at a rate, 14.1%, close to the rate of people with an IQ of 80, 15.2%. "Only among people slightly above-average does an increasing IQ score lead to a reduced chance of financial distress," says the study. "The survey provides no data to explain why this occurs," but Zagorsky offers these explanations for High IQ types getting into financial hot water:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2007-0 8- 12-smart-not-rich_N.htm

Are you seriously trying to argue that smarter people don't tend to make more money than less intelligent people?


Like you I would have thought that they do but apparently that is not the case according to the study I linked to, that's why I said "surprisingly your facts aren't really true"

The answer is no. "Being more intelligent does not confer any advantage along two of the three key dimensions of financial success (income, net worth and financial distress)," Zagorsky finds, looking at the data with statistical tests. Income does weakly correspond to intelligence test scores, he finds, where "a one point increase in IQ test scores is related to an income increase of $346 per year. But at most, that same one-point increase in IQ leads to "a net worth increase of at most $83, but probably zero."
 
2013-10-18 11:29:59 AM  
whoops...
 
2013-10-18 11:30:58 AM  

rumpelstiltskin: Ned Stark: DrewCurtisJr: Tom_Slick: Get rid of NCLB and maybe we can get some decent public schools again.

What? The reason we have NCLB is because the public schools weren't doing well, especially with low income students.

Its a nessecary but not sufficient condition.

You want to make the schools decent again? Bring back corporal punishment.


Or how about we just let the teachers teach? Challenge the kids. Kids who don't do well need to be held back til they get it; kids who aren't challenged by the standard level of work get more complex work (not more volume). NCLB doesn't work. Our kids have to pass standardized tests to advance grades, yet they don't know how to think because the schools teach to the test. They teach test taking skills and mnemonics and bullshiat like that instead of helping the kids acquire a real knowledge of the subjects. And yeah, I agree, many of the kids could do with a good paddling--but they would then just be well-behaved, uneducated, test-takers.
 
2013-10-18 11:31:12 AM  
It's all greedy rich people's fault they are poor.
 
2013-10-18 11:31:22 AM  

meat0918: tricycleracer: meat0918: tricycleracer: It's expensive to be poor in America.

More than once I've heard the sentiment "I'm too poor to shop at Walmart, because that shiat falls apart all the time, and I cannot afford to be replacing stuff all the time"

Check out the rent-to-own tire industry.

1.  Need tires to get to work or you'll lose your job.
2.  Get rent to own tires since you can't afford an all cash deal.
3.  Pay 10x what the tires actually cost.

Rent to own TIRES?!?!!??!??!

I'm.......

goddamnit, wtf?


I think he may be confusing rent to own "tires" (which I've never heard of) with rent to own wheels, ie 22" rims. Rent to own rim stores are everywhere.
 
2013-10-18 11:31:26 AM  
Doesn't statistics mean that these are now AVERAGE income students?  Problem solved!

(Math is always the answer.)
 
2013-10-18 11:32:47 AM  

FarkedOver: Capitalism is bullshiat. Cooperation is the only way we can and the only way we will succeed as a planet.



Capitalism is cooperation.  It's the voluntary exchange of property for mutual benefit.
 
2013-10-18 11:33:01 AM  

Fano: Zero tolerance and teaching to the test, combined with other asinine policies assures that anyone who cares about their children will either send them to private school or home school them.


We use public school as free day care as it doesn't challenge my kid--even in the high school honors program (we are in Texas). So his actual learning takes place at home most of the time.....
 
2013-10-18 11:33:19 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: meat0918: tricycleracer: meat0918: tricycleracer: It's expensive to be poor in America.

More than once I've heard the sentiment "I'm too poor to shop at Walmart, because that shiat falls apart all the time, and I cannot afford to be replacing stuff all the time"

Check out the rent-to-own tire industry.

1.  Need tires to get to work or you'll lose your job.
2.  Get rent to own tires since you can't afford an all cash deal.
3.  Pay 10x what the tires actually cost.

Rent to own TIRES?!?!!??!??!

I'm.......

goddamnit, wtf?

I think he may be confusing rent to own "tires" (which I've never heard of) with rent to own wheels, ie 22" rims. Rent to own rim stores are everywhere.


Nope.  Plain old boring passenger car tires in regular sizes:   High prices are driving more motorists to rent tires
 
2013-10-18 11:33:30 AM  
Koodz:

I wonder if we cut defense spending to only 25% of the budget and contented ourselves with only having the most expensive military in the world instead of the galaxy how much welfare and tax cuts we could afford...

While I agree we spend way too much on defense, I wonder what we would do with all of the people that would instantly become unemployed under your plan. Last I heard, about 3 million people work in defense related industries.
 
2013-10-18 11:34:05 AM  

tricycleracer: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: meat0918: tricycleracer: meat0918: tricycleracer: It's expensive to be poor in America.

More than once I've heard the sentiment "I'm too poor to shop at Walmart, because that shiat falls apart all the time, and I cannot afford to be replacing stuff all the time"

Check out the rent-to-own tire industry.

1.  Need tires to get to work or you'll lose your job.
2.  Get rent to own tires since you can't afford an all cash deal.
3.  Pay 10x what the tires actually cost.

Rent to own TIRES?!?!!??!??!

I'm.......

goddamnit, wtf?

I think he may be confusing rent to own "tires" (which I've never heard of) with rent to own wheels, ie 22" rims. Rent to own rim stores are everywhere.

Nope.  Plain old boring passenger car tires in regular sizes:   High prices are driving more motorists to rent tires


What in the fark!?
 
2013-10-18 11:34:48 AM  

Phinn: Capitalism is cooperation. It's the voluntary exchange of property for mutual benefit.


The worker isn't voluntarily selling his/her labor. The worker has no choice but to sell their labor or they do not eat.  That is not cooperation.
 
2013-10-18 11:34:49 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: tricycleracer: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: meat0918: tricycleracer: meat0918: tricycleracer: It's expensive to be poor in America.

More than once I've heard the sentiment "I'm too poor to shop at Walmart, because that shiat falls apart all the time, and I cannot afford to be replacing stuff all the time"

Check out the rent-to-own tire industry.

1.  Need tires to get to work or you'll lose your job.
2.  Get rent to own tires since you can't afford an all cash deal.
3.  Pay 10x what the tires actually cost.

Rent to own TIRES?!?!!??!??!

I'm.......

goddamnit, wtf?

I think he may be confusing rent to own "tires" (which I've never heard of) with rent to own wheels, ie 22" rims. Rent to own rim stores are everywhere.

Nope.  Plain old boring passenger car tires in regular sizes:   High prices are driving more motorists to rent tires

What in the fark!?


Free market solutions man.
 
2013-10-18 11:35:27 AM  

Yellow Beard: I wonder what we would do with all of the people that would instantly become unemployed under your plan.


They wouldn't necessarily become 'instantly' unemployed. Those that do would have to find another job. FWIW, I'd be one of them, and that is fine by me.
 
2013-10-18 11:35:33 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: meat0918: tricycleracer: meat0918: tricycleracer: It's expensive to be poor in America.

More than once I've heard the sentiment "I'm too poor to shop at Walmart, because that shiat falls apart all the time, and I cannot afford to be replacing stuff all the time"

Check out the rent-to-own tire industry.

1.  Need tires to get to work or you'll lose your job.
2.  Get rent to own tires since you can't afford an all cash deal.
3.  Pay 10x what the tires actually cost.

Rent to own TIRES?!?!!??!??!

I'm.......

goddamnit, wtf?

I think he may be confusing rent to own "tires" (which I've never heard of) with rent to own wheels, ie 22" rims. Rent to own rim stores are everywhere.


Nope, tires.
http://www.gorimco.com/
http://www.rentawheel.com/How-it-Works
 
2013-10-18 11:36:52 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Fact 1: Stupid people tend to be poorer than smart people

Fact 2: stupid people are more likely to have stupid kids than smart people

Fact 3: stupid kids grow up to be stupid adults that, surprise surprise, tend to be poorer than smart adults.

Why is any of this in any way surprising?


Because you're using a bunch of "tends to" statements to draw an absolute conclusion that sensible people reject.
 
2013-10-18 11:37:11 AM  

FarkedOver: Phinn: Capitalism is cooperation. It's the voluntary exchange of property for mutual benefit.

The worker isn't voluntarily selling his/her labor. The worker has no choice but to sell their labor or they do not eat.  That is not cooperation.



Of course it is.  Even your hypothetical starving worker is greatly improving his situation (starvation -> death) by making a voluntary agreement with an employer to get paid for work (income -> food).
 
2013-10-18 11:37:11 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: tricycleracer: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: meat0918: tricycleracer: meat0918: tricycleracer: It's expensive to be poor in America.

More than once I've heard the sentiment "I'm too poor to shop at Walmart, because that shiat falls apart all the time, and I cannot afford to be replacing stuff all the time"

Check out the rent-to-own tire industry.

1.  Need tires to get to work or you'll lose your job.
2.  Get rent to own tires since you can't afford an all cash deal.
3.  Pay 10x what the tires actually cost.

Rent to own TIRES?!?!!??!??!

I'm.......

goddamnit, wtf?

I think he may be confusing rent to own "tires" (which I've never heard of) with rent to own wheels, ie 22" rims. Rent to own rim stores are everywhere.

Nope.  Plain old boring passenger car tires in regular sizes:   High prices are driving more motorists to rent tires

What in the fark!?


We have had rental tires in my area for as long as I can remember, but they are all by tiny companies in buildings that make you want to wash your hands just looking at them. They always reminded me of the pay day loan locations.
 
2013-10-18 11:37:39 AM  

Yeah_Right: Koodz: uber humper: Slaves2Darkness: uber humper: [www.betterthanpants.com image 704x272] If all you do is hope, you won't see any change

It's working great for the Blue states, but hey those Red states that refuse to give "Government Handouts" seem to be falling further and further behind. It's almost like in the 21st century we need our government to help us achieve success. That the "land of opportunity" is increasingly the "land of need an education".

I look at the map in the article and it corresponds very closely with how much aid states give to the poor. Those states that have liberal welfare policies have lowered poverty rates, high education rates, and better economies then states that don't.


I agree about the education but we need to find a better way to handle welfare.

China just dropped our credit rating because we are financing debt with more debt.  There is a tipping point on how much we can spend. The gov is currently paying 2% on the debt, once that goes up to more realistic numbers, the welfare is gonna take huge a hit. It;s not sustainable.  And the rich don't have enough money to tax.

It's a good thing welfare is the only item on the budget we could possibly be wasting money on.

I wonder if we cut defense spending to only 25% of the budget and contented ourselves with only having the most expensive military in the world instead of the galaxy how much welfare and tax cuts we could afford...

I keep hearing this argument over and over - but those that make this suggestion seem to forget one thing: how many people will be put out of work by cutting defense spending by X%...? And how about all those people who depend upon those workers getting a paycheck?

Dislike the military all you want ... but they actually employ (directly and indirectly) millions of people who produce something. And that's not even taking into account the multitude of civilian products that have been created as a result of items that were originally produced by the manufa ...


The problem with many military projects is that they provide no further benefit once the paycheck's gone out. A Hellfire missile costs around $100,000 to $150,000. Someone got paid to build it, great, but munitions by definition are single use. Predator 2 drones can hold up to 14 of these, so that's 1.4 to 2.1 million dollars that will never benefit us again once used. That same amount of money could go a long way in a public school system, or hell, even used to repair roads and bridges back home.
 
2013-10-18 11:37:46 AM  

error 303: One thing my wife and I sort of argue about is what we're going to do for school when our three year old (and later on our 4 month old_ gets a bit older. We happily live a few blocks outside of the unaccredited Kansas City district and our district seems to be about average, but she's leaning towards sending our kids to a private school, even if it means that means a religious school, while I'd really rather have our girls in public school. The notion of middle class families, and, yeah, white families, pulling their kids out of urban public schools and putting them in private, suburban schools, always bothers me, as I think having involved and interested parents who are genuinely concerned about their childs education matters more than just "where" a child winds up.

But on the flip side, all the private schools around here just look "better" by each metric, and as a parent, you want the best for your kids.

I dunno. As a product of private, religious schools up until my sophmore year of highschool, when I made it clear to my parents I absolutely hated every aspect of private school, I'm really, really pushing to keep our kids in the public school system, but it's hard to really fault her for wanting our kids to go to the best available school, even if it means paying out of pocket and trying to figure out how to explain to them whey we don't acutally do any of the religious stuff school says to do.

tl;dr, sucks that public school systems are largely in shambles


Smart Parents are what is going to make smart kids. If you are involved with your kids, public school is better for a lot of reasons. Religious schools have just two goals;take your money and brainwash your kids into believing non-reproducible ideas. I know I had a hard time in private catholic school: my brother excelled.
 
2013-10-18 11:38:54 AM  
Geez, Atlantic ... ever heard of .. never mind. You're too dense to understand.
 
2013-10-18 11:39:54 AM  

Yellow Beard: Koodz:

I wonder if we cut defense spending to only 25% of the budget and contented ourselves with only having the most expensive military in the world instead of the galaxy how much welfare and tax cuts we could afford...

While I agree we spend way too much on defense, I wonder what we would do with all of the people that would instantly become unemployed under your plan. Last I heard, about 3 million people work in defense related industries.


presumably they'd get jobs in the private sector if the tax cuts went to the people who actually spend money in the country or in the government under the  increased social services spending.
 
2013-10-18 11:40:12 AM  
This seems like a meaningless statistic to me.

The poverty line is determined by what people have.  If everyone has less, the poverty line should be lowered.  Claiming there is an objective poverty line is crazy....and I can tell you from first hand experience there are people on welfare in the US who live better than working class people in other countries.

//400 sq ft. apartment
//No cable TV
//No car
//No a/c
//EU
 
2013-10-18 11:40:36 AM  

FarkedOver: Phinn: Capitalism is cooperation. It's the voluntary exchange of property for mutual benefit.

The worker isn't voluntarily selling his/her labor. The worker has no choice but to sell their labor or they do not eat.  That is not cooperation.


It's still voluntary, unless you think the term means "free from motivation." It doesn't.
 
2013-10-18 11:40:44 AM  

Phinn: Of course it is. Even your hypothetical starving worker is greatly improving his situation (starvation -> death) by making a voluntary agreement with an employer to get paid for work (income -> food).


That is not a hypothetical.  Every person that sells their labor power does so in order to survive.  That's not a choice.  That is the very definition of subjugation and coercion.
 
2013-10-18 11:40:55 AM  
Positive.  Roll.  Models.  Where can you get some?  I've looked online.  I've looked in the old phone books.  I've looked at sports.  I know better than to look to business.

Sadly the rich do not deign to live in poverty stricken areas for some reason, so they're no help.
 
2013-10-18 11:42:30 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: It's still voluntary, unless you think the term means "free from motivation." It doesn't.


No, it is survival not volunteerism.
 
2013-10-18 11:43:34 AM  

Headso: Yellow Beard: Koodz:

I wonder if we cut defense spending to only 25% of the budget and contented ourselves with only having the most expensive military in the world instead of the galaxy how much welfare and tax cuts we could afford...

While I agree we spend way too much on defense, I wonder what we would do with all of the people that would instantly become unemployed under your plan. Last I heard, about 3 million people work in defense related industries.

presumably they'd get jobs in the private sector if the tax cuts went to the people who actually spend money in the country or in the government under the  increased social services spending.


The problem there is that there just aren't that many jobs available that would pay anywhere near the same salary. If there were, why is unemployment still so high?
 
2013-10-18 11:43:45 AM  
Dan Carlin had an interesting podcast on this subject recently.

/I am sure I am supposed to hate him.
 
2013-10-18 11:43:57 AM  

Marcintosh: Positive.  Roll.  Models.  Where can you get some?  I've looked online.  I've looked in the old phone books.  I've looked at sports.  I know better than to look to business.

Sadly the rich do not deign to live in poverty stricken areas for some reason, so they're no help.


Positive roll model:

manhattaninfidel.com
 
2013-10-18 11:43:59 AM  

Headso: Debeo Summa Credo: Headso: Debeo Summa Credo: Fact 1: Stupid people tend to be poorer than smart people

Fact 2: stupid people are more likely to have stupid kids than smart people

Fact 3: stupid kids grow up to be stupid adults that, surprise surprise, tend to be poorer than smart adults.

Why is any of this in any way surprising?

The surprising thing is your facts aren't even really true.

People with 140 IQ scores (a score of 100 is average) missed payments and maxed-out their credit cards more often than their lower IQ counterparts. They went bankrupt at a rate, 14.1%, close to the rate of people with an IQ of 80, 15.2%. "Only among people slightly above-average does an increasing IQ score lead to a reduced chance of financial distress," says the study. "The survey provides no data to explain why this occurs," but Zagorsky offers these explanations for High IQ types getting into financial hot water:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2007-0 8- 12-smart-not-rich_N.htm

Are you seriously trying to argue that smarter people don't tend to make more money than less intelligent people?

the study is making the argument that intelligence and wealth are not  Debeo Summa Credo: Headso: Debeo Summa Credo: Fact 1: Stupid people tend to be poorer than smart people

Fact 2: stupid people are more likely to have stupid kids than smart people

Fact 3: stupid kids grow up to be stupid adults that, surprise surprise, tend to be poorer than smart adults.

Why is any of this in any way surprising?

The surprising thing is your facts aren't even really true.

People with 140 IQ scores (a score of 100 is average) missed payments and maxed-out their credit cards more often than their lower IQ counterparts. They went bankrupt at a rate, 14.1%, close to the rate of people with an IQ of 80, 15.2%. "Only among people slightly above-average does an increasing IQ score lead to a reduced chance of financial distress," says the study. "The survey provides no dat ...


A few points:

1)  The study you cite supports the notion that higher IQ results in higher income:
The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.
This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year
.

That's a significant delta in a a country in which average income was $45k in 2007 (the year the study was published).  I did say 'poorer' in my first point, so perhaps I should have said 'earn more'.  After all, that's how poverty levels are determined - not what you have but what you make.

2)  Other studies have said otherwise re wealth: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100637179

3)  Neither here nor there, but I thought IQ wasn't a relevant indicator of intelligence anyway?   At least that's what I've read on fark.
 
2013-10-18 11:44:15 AM  

FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: It's still voluntary, unless you think the term means "free from motivation." It doesn't.

No, it is survival not volunteerism.


Oh, ok. Thanks for that insightful retort.
 
2013-10-18 11:44:24 AM  
Free housing, free phone, free food, free cash.... Why would anyone want to stop being poor? It is hard work.
 
2013-10-18 11:44:25 AM  

FarkedOver: Phinn: Of course it is. Even your hypothetical starving worker is greatly improving his situation (starvation -> death) by making a voluntary agreement with an employer to get paid for work (income -> food).

That is not a hypothetical.  Every person that sells their labor power does so in order to survive.  That's not a choice.  That is the very definition of subjugation and coercion.



No, that isn't the correct definition.

Subjugation and coercion is the threat that the person you're dealing with will ATTACK you if you don't agree to cooperate.

In a voluntary interaction, both parties have the right to walk away, and NOT be attacked by the other party, if the two of them don't make a mutually-acceptable trade.

I see what your problem is now -- your definitions are completely wrong.  I'm glad I could clear that up for you.
 
2013-10-18 11:44:38 AM  
Admit it, America. You have a problem.

And a class system. And you're not exceptional. In fact, your class system is not one of the most upwardly mobile, even in the developed world. America is one hurtin' puppy, as the preppy-wannabees used to say when I was an undergrad and sophomore.

For example, even right wing think tanks admit that Canada is more bootstrapy, with many advantages for entrepreneurs, such as almost complete power to hire and fire, short turnaround on incorporation and setting up businesses, a skilled workforce with lower wages and a more accommodating healthcare system. If Canada is beating you at something, you are farked, my son. Canada is a born follower and club-joiner. It is a middle class country through and through. It doesn't invest enough in its people, and it builds giant monster homes that fall apart in a gentle rain. THE DAMN COUNTRY IS LITERALLY BUILT ON SAND. TAR SAND. The worst kind of sand. It doesn't even make a decent beach.

Furthermore, social mobility has been a myth for generations. Back in the Fifties, Sixties, and Seventies, before the Revenge of the One Percent, an American youth faced a one in three chance of moving up relative to his Father, one in three of being about the same, and one in three of falling. This is a recipe for stasis, not upward mobility. And it was based not on class but on employment--the moves were mostly within the same social class. Americans could get slightly better or worse jobs, pays, housing, etc., than their parents but essentially class was inherited by all but the most exceptional cases: alcoholics, schizophrenics, and drug addicts moving down, a few extra-hard working, intelligent and well-educated people moving up a bit.

Today the big economic gap is between the young and the elderly within the same class, and between the 1% and the rest. In other words, you're not a jot or iota less of a class society than England or Germany or  Sweden. Your class markers tend to be obscured by propaganda from the governing classes (Democrats as much as Republicans) because the truth is they have you by the short and curlies. As Kang and Kodos put it, it's a two-party system. You're "wasting your vote" if you try to shift out the skins and the shirts, the Reds and the Blues, the liberals and the conservatives.

Socialism failed in the US because the powers that be were able to control or destroy the Unions. They cut the workers off from the celebration of May Day but substituting the meaningless and useless Labor Day instead. They allowed Unions to become corrupt and to sell out to management and the mafia. They filled your heads with propaganda that obscures even the meanings of the word socialist, liberal, conservative, communist, social democratic, liberty, etc.

The only Unions left are public, the envy of everybody who hasn't got one of their own. But they are weak and under attack now that the rest of the country has been screwed over.

About 4% of your children are educated in private schools, many of those "religious". These are self-selecting focuses of class-aspiration. They tend to get the smarter children (upper, upper-middle class) or the more aggressively conformist and ambitious working class people (Roman Catholics, Jews, Baptists).

As in the UK, this hollows out the public system, where money is based on "merit" by taking the most meritorious out of the public schools.

IT DOESN'T MATTER MUCH WHERE YOU GET AN EDUCATION. IF YOU ARE SMART AND INDUSTRIOUS, YOU WILL GET AN EDUCATION. IF YOU ARE LAZY AND STUPID, YOU WON'T.

You can trust me on that. I have attended five universities including the best and the rest in roughly equal proportions.

The quality of my education depended first, on me, because I am that class brain whose Father hired and fired the parents of the rest of the class. Then on my teachers, some of whom where great and some where idiots and even old school Conservative Baptist idiots. Doesn't matter. You can learn a heck of a lot from idiots as you can learn a heck of a lot from reading bad books. In fact, you need idiots and bad books to teach you the difference between smart people and idiots and between good books and bad books. The more variety, the better.

My one great advantage is being exposed to a lot of people and ideas and things that most people miss. Such as social classes. Most of you have lived your lives in one, scarcely knowing anybody from all the other classes and class fractions. I have lived in close quarters with many if not most of them.

The ugly truth is that education for the masses is shiat in America, while education for the classes is top rate. And Democrats are as useless as tits on a bull. Sorry. I'm not throwing a sop to the Republicans. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

You see, the middle classes do a lousy job of educating the working classes because their own precious snowflakes are being worked to death to succeed by another man's measure of success. Middle class parents and teachers and school boards and principals and educators and politicians are the class enemies of the poor and the working people. And it shows.

In fact, it shows even in me.

What do you think those gormless, toothless hillbillies are whining about? They know (in their dim animal brains) that you contemn them and that some of you even hate them and wish them harm.

The difference between a Democrat and a Republican is that a Democrat wishes you no specific harm. Otherwise, they could care less but the effort would kill them.

Excuse me. Not only am I running long today, I am running Commie.

Unless the workers take over (and that includes the upper middle class brain workers, dammit--who else has a clue what is going on?) you will all be ground down into a fine paste.

That is the fate of you shabby-assed Pinks. To become pink slime. (Lou Dobbs and Marx have a lot more in common than either will admit.)

Just call me Cassandra.

The Communists were right. If you aren't Soylent Green or Pink Slime now, you're next. Don't laugh. It ain't fun or funny.
 
2013-10-18 11:44:55 AM  

Tom_Slick: DrewCurtisJr: Tom_Slick: Get rid of NCLB and maybe we can get some decent public schools again.

What? The reason we have NCLB is because the public schools weren't doing well, especially with low income students.

It was a good idea, but it didn't work. Look to Atlanta Public Schools.  Funding is tied up with that test so bad schools only teach the kids to pass the test.  So what we end up with is a bunch of kids who spend 12 years only learning how to take standardized tests.


It was a _terrible_ idea. That's _why_ it didn't work.

/  I've seen administrators drawing conclusions about teachers over 1% changes in averages when the error bars for the test were 8% or so.
 
2013-10-18 11:44:56 AM  
The more excuses you make for your failure, the harder you will fail. The more power you attribute to external forces, the less you keep for yourself.

/Sell drugs, I can at least respect a dealer.
 
2013-10-18 11:45:26 AM  

Thunderpipes: Free housing, free phone, free food, free cash.... Why would anyone want to stop being poor? It is hard work.


Smart take.
 
2013-10-18 11:45:37 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Yellow Beard: I wonder what we would do with all of the people that would instantly become unemployed under your plan.

They wouldn't necessarily become 'instantly' unemployed. Those that do would have to find another job. FWIW, I'd be one of them, and that is fine by me.


The vast majority would be instantly umemployed. Would some find comparable paying jobs? Yes. Would the majority? Not a chance in hell.
 
2013-10-18 11:45:47 AM  
If you can't feed em, don't breed em.
 
2013-10-18 11:46:38 AM  

Yogimus: /Sell drugs, I can at least respect a dealer.


.....
 
2013-10-18 11:46:57 AM  

Deedeemarz: Fano: Zero tolerance and teaching to the test, combined with other asinine policies assures that anyone who cares about their children will either send them to private school or home school them.

We use public school as free day care as it doesn't challenge my kid--even in the high school honors program (we are in Texas). So his actual learning takes place at home most of the time.....




Your explanation is clearly: you are in Texas. I used to have to put together different textbooks for you. Your school board demands stupidity.
 
2013-10-18 11:47:10 AM  
This is definitely a sad situation, but I still think some of the blame needs to go on the impoverished who continue the cycle from generation to generation. My family was incredibly low income when I was a kid, but my parents busted their arses at work (mom at pizza hut and the phone company, dad as a night shift pharm tech), went to school part time, and eventually got us out of the poverty hole. It took years and hundreds of "pancakes for dinner" type meals, but the cycle can definitely be broken.
 
2013-10-18 11:48:05 AM  

meat0918: tricycleracer: meat0918: tricycleracer: It's expensive to be poor in America.

More than once I've heard the sentiment "I'm too poor to shop at Walmart, because that shiat falls apart all the time, and I cannot afford to be replacing stuff all the time"

Check out the rent-to-own tire industry.

1.  Need tires to get to work or you'll lose your job.
2.  Get rent to own tires since you can't afford an all cash deal.
3.  Pay 10x what the tires actually cost.

Rent to own TIRES?!?!!??!??!

I'm.......

goddamnit, wtf?


And the owner of the rent to own tire place is improving his lot on life, because the people he supplies are farking dumb.
 
2013-10-18 11:48:14 AM  

Thunderpipes: Free housing, free phone, free food, free cash.... Why would anyone want to stop being poor? It is hard work.


that's the success of the war on poverty for ya.
 
2013-10-18 11:48:17 AM  
WOW!
Gee, America, what a nice, affluent, educated, productive middle class you have there.

It would sure be a shame if anything were to happen to it.

Sheep get shorn.

/next time a society manages to raise a middle class, I sure hope they are protected instead of sold to highest bidder
 
2013-10-18 11:48:39 AM  

patrick767: If we'd stop using mostly local funding for public schools, we'd go a long way toward solving our horribly inequitable public school system. Of course I doubt that will ever happen in most states. The suburbanites with the money have power and a vested interest in making sure their kids have the best funded public schools (if they don't send their kids to private schools). Fark those poor people in the inner city.


Because of the oil (and other) industry in Texas, some school districts are very wealthy. So we instituted the Robin Hood plan to help equalize because of course the poorer districts were not performing well. So they take money from my district, give it to some system down in the Valley, and guess what? Our schools are well-funded and average-to-above average, and their schools are well-funded and still below average. Tah-dah.

The difference is that a lot of the kids in the Valley have immigrant parents who work their asses off and can't really put a lot of time into supporting their kids' education; culturally education isn't as important as working hard and taking care of family; and relatively large families are the norm even on a very limited income. Education is just not as big a focus for many of those residents. Our area, OTOH, has a middle-class stable population, relatively small family size, and culturally believe education through college level is important.

Throwing money into schools where the constituents don't place as much  value on education will not make much difference....
 
2013-10-18 11:48:43 AM  

Yellow Beard: The vast majority would be instantly umemployed.


Again, not necessarily. Many defense corporations plan for the risk of defense budget cuts by selling their hardware to foreign companies. You're a defense Keynesian, I get it. So let's pretend defense is untouchable. Budget can't be cut even a small amount. There are plenty of other ways to secure that money.
 
2013-10-18 11:49:02 AM  

ikanreed: Debeo Summa Credo: Fact 1: Stupid people tend to be poorer than smart people

Fact 2: stupid people are more likely to have stupid kids than smart people

Fact 3: stupid kids grow up to be stupid adults that, surprise surprise, tend to be poorer than smart adults.

Why is any of this in any way surprising?

Because you're using a bunch of "tends to" statements to draw an absolute conclusion that sensible people reject.


Um, no, sensible people would not reject the conclusion that we shouldn't be surprised that poverty 'tends to' pass down from generation to generation.   Do the children of poor people always end up poor like their parents?   No, of course not.  But they are more likely to be poor, or 'tend to' remain poor, right?  Because we need that 'tend to' caveat should we then reject the claim that poverty perpetuates from generation to generation?
 
2013-10-18 11:49:43 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: foreign companies.


countries
 
2013-10-18 11:50:14 AM  

bearcats1983: This is definitely a sad situation, but I still think some of the blame needs to go on the impoverished who continue the cycle from generation to generation. My family was incredibly low income when I was a kid, but my parents busted their arses at work (mom at pizza hut and the phone company, dad as a night shift pharm tech), went to school part time, and eventually got us out of the poverty hole. It took years and hundreds of "pancakes for dinner" type meals, but the cycle can definitely be broken.


Not by the people stuck in it. Room to move comes from above.
 
2013-10-18 11:50:19 AM  

Thunderpipes: Free housing, free phone, free food, free cash.... Why would anyone want to stop being poor? It is hard work.


Especially when you don't have to be poor to qualify for the free stuff.
 
2013-10-18 11:50:32 AM  

Fano: Zero tolerance and teaching to the test, combined with other asinine policies assures that anyone who cares about their children will either send them to private school or home school them.



You forgot about the need to avoid children that were raised poorly.
 
2013-10-18 11:50:53 AM  

Coco LaFemme: Tom_Slick: DrewCurtisJr: Tom_Slick: Get rid of NCLB and maybe we can get some decent public schools again.

What? The reason we have NCLB is because the public schools weren't doing well, especially with low income students.

It was a good idea, but it didn't work. Look to Atlanta Public Schools.  Funding is tied up with that test so bad schools only teach the kids to pass the test.  So what we end up with is a bunch of kids who spend 12 years only learning how to take standardized tests.

Part of the problem with schools in Atlanta, and I'd know because I used to live there, is that North Fulton County is where all the money is.  South Fulton County gets shafted, in regards to tax dollars, and thus their schools are always far below those that exist in places like Alpharetta, Sandy Springs, and Dunwoody.  SAT scores are consistently much lower, graduation rates are a hell of a lot lower.....it's not pretty.


I get that but I was referring to the Atlanta Public School system not the Fulton County school system.  Atlanta Public Schools wi where the teachers changed test answers to insure their government funding.
 
2013-10-18 11:50:59 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: It's still voluntary, unless you think the term means "free from motivation." It doesn't.

No, it is survival not volunteerism.

Oh, ok. Thanks for that insightful retort.


Oh, ok. You volunteer to create a product from start to finish for someone who has completely emancipated themselves from labor.  After you finish the product you have no choice in what happens to that product.  Your employer sells that product and pays you a mere fraction of the total worth of the said product, even though you have created its entire value.

We volunteer for this because it is fair, right and just? No, we volunteer for this because we have no choice BUT to do this in order to live.
 
2013-10-18 11:52:27 AM  

Lochsteppe: The leading cause of poverty is...*drum roll*...POVERTY!  Who could have guessed that a system which requires a suffering underclass will tend to perpetuate that underclass?


The "natural rate of unemployment" was 5-6% until the Neo-Conservatives took over. This economist argot hides the crime of which you speak:  "full unemployment" hides the same crime on the Commie side of things.

The new natural rate of unemployment may be 7-8%, in which case Obama is right on target and deserves your respect and applause.

Heed my warning: Jobby McJobmaker is not interested in making jobs except at the lowest wage and non-existent benefit levels. Jobby McJobmaker only exists to delude you into thinking that one of the two parties, the skins or the shirts, cares whether you ever get a job, a life, or descendants.

To put it in the hard-nosed language of the Boneheaded Plutocrats: The bottom line is the bottom line. The business of business is not charity. The business of business is not to make work. The business of business is to make money for us, the real owners, the Masters of the Universe.

The peasantry has been reduced from 99% of the population to about 5% in the USA. The workers were the next to go. Now the lower middle class white collar and pink collar workers are on the way out, as are layers of middle managers and anybody whose job can be automated and done by a computer and a few sensors or robots or cybernetic programmes.

The experts will go soon after the clerks and the secretaries. The scientists and the professionals will, like the working people before them, find their work turned into their enemy, capital. The capital of the very, very few.

First the working classes work themselves out of jobs, then the governing classes become too numerous and have to fight to the death. Only the machines multiply and grow in power.
 
2013-10-18 11:56:30 AM  

FarkedOver: Phinn: Capitalism is cooperation. It's the voluntary exchange of property for mutual benefit.

The worker isn't voluntarily selling his/her labor. The worker has no choice but to sell their labor or they do not eat.  That is not cooperation.


How is that not cooperation? We all contribute to society and the economy in some way. If the worker doesn't like his role in the system, he can take action to change that role and contribute in some other way. Your statement sounds as if you are implying that we should all be able to sit on our asses having bons bons delievered in some magical way instead of working for what you want....
 
2013-10-18 11:57:00 AM  

bearcats1983: This is definitely a sad situation, but I still think some of the blame needs to go on the impoverished who continue the cycle from generation to generation. My family was incredibly low income when I was a kid, but my parents busted their arses at work (mom at pizza hut and the phone company, dad as a night shift pharm tech), went to school part time, and eventually got us out of the poverty hole. It took years and hundreds of "pancakes for dinner" type meals, but the cycle can definitely be broken.


I came from a large family in the upper-low income territory. However, every kid worked their way through school, and my parents always made sure we understood that education was the easiest way to succeed in life. Now, all the kids are at a minimum upper-middle class income after having graduated with awesome grade point averages and working much less hours now than the parents did. However, I now either know or work with masters and PHD students graduating from school and taking low paying jobs just to make ends meet because their target jobs just don't seem to be there for them. Things are really tough right now for even the educated (though it probably will change, maybe not too soon).
 
2013-10-18 11:57:28 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Yellow Beard: The vast majority would be instantly umemployed.

Again, not necessarily. Many defense corporations plan for the risk of defense budget cuts by selling their hardware to foreign companies. You're a defense Keynesian, I get it. So let's pretend defense is untouchable. Budget can't be cut even a small amount. There are plenty of other ways to secure that money.


I believe I started out by saying we spend too much on defense. Perhaps I should be more clear. I think the defense budget should be cut, just not by 75% as somebody suggested in this thread. When any company loses its biggest customer and sales fall by a corresponding amount to what that customer was buying, the company has to replace those sales or cut their work force. Which do you think is more likely to happen? Finding another country with an unlimited appetite for weapons like America isn't at all a likelihood.
 
2013-10-18 11:58:50 AM  

UrukHaiGuyz: The problem with many military projects is that they provide no further benefit once the paycheck's gone out.


He unironically posts on the internet.
 
2013-10-18 11:58:59 AM  

FarkedOver: That is not a hypothetical.  Every person that sells their labor power does so in order to survive.  That's not a choice.  That is the very definition of subjugation and coercion.


No, not really.

At about half-a-million dollars, you don't  have to.  That's the point when, assuming things don't go all Mad Max or Weimar, you could buy a basic rural house in cash, spend ~$1000 a month (+ inflation adjustments), and survive ad infinitum.

Around 14% of the nations households are at that point, though most of them don't think of themselves that way.

Knowing you could do fark-all, though?  Wow liberating,
 
2013-10-18 11:59:53 AM  

cig-mkr: I blame the manufacturing jobs going overseas, was a time when a person could get a fairly good paying job with just a high school education and a little training.


While you are correct that globalization (US manufacturing workers competing with newly emerging workers escaping subsistence farming overseas) definitely had an impact on the value of labor in this country, also recognize the impact that immigration had on working class wages.

The percentage of the population that is foreign born rose from 4.7% in 1970 to 13% today http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/11/local/la-me-foreign-born-2012 0 511.

Although there are pros and cons of immigration, don't discount the impact that this huge influx of largely low skill labor had on working class wages over the last 40 years.
 
2013-10-18 12:01:06 PM  

FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: It's still voluntary, unless you think the term means "free from motivation." It doesn't.

No, it is survival not volunteerism.

Oh, ok. Thanks for that insightful retort.

Oh, ok. You volunteer to create a product from start to finish for someone who has completely emancipated themselves from labor.  After you finish the product you have no choice in what happens to that product.  Your employer sells that product and pays you a mere fraction of the total worth of the said product, even though you have created its entire value.

We volunteer for this because it is fair, right and just? No, we volunteer for this because we have no choice BUT to do this in order to live.


Describe a better system, one in which people volunteer without basing said volunteering on survival.
 
2013-10-18 12:01:37 PM  

shifty lookin bleeder: [i1.ytimg.com image 850x478]


Because, obviously, we don't want educated ditch diggers.
 
2013-10-18 12:01:54 PM  

Lawnchair: FarkedOver: That is not a hypothetical.  Every person that sells their labor power does so in order to survive.  That's not a choice.  That is the very definition of subjugation and coercion.

No, not really.

At about half-a-million dollars, you don't  have to.  That's the point when, assuming things don't go all Mad Max or Weimar, you could buy a basic rural house in cash, spend ~$1000 a month (+ inflation adjustments), and survive ad infinitum.

Around 14% of the nations households are at that point, though most of them don't think of themselves that way.


I've worked with the wives of lawyers and doctors. They didn't do it for the money, but to get out of the house. Being rich is apparently a very boring life, from what they've told me. I personally wouldn't mind that burden in life.
 
2013-10-18 12:02:01 PM  

Deedeemarz: How is that not cooperation? We all contribute to society and the economy in some way. If the worker doesn't like his role in the system, he can take action to change that role and contribute in some other way. Your statement sounds as if you are implying that we should all be able to sit on our asses having bons bons delievered in some magical way instead of working for what you want...


I'm not advocating for sitting on our asses.  I'm advocating worker control of the means of production and the elimination of the true moocher class, the 1%.
 
2013-10-18 12:02:02 PM  

Vectron: Fano: Zero tolerance and teaching to the test, combined with other asinine policies assures that anyone who cares about their children will either send them to private school or home school them.


You forgot about the need to avoid children that were raised poorly.


That was a given.
 
2013-10-18 12:03:43 PM  

Yellow Beard: When any company loses its biggest customer and sales fall by a corresponding amount to what that customer was buying, the company has to replace those sales or cut their work force. Which do you think is more likely to happen?


A combination of both, which is why I said those workers aren't necessarily instantly unemployed.

Yellow Beard: Finding another country with an unlimited appetite for weapons like America isn't at all a likelihood.


There is more than one country. I work in defense, we sell to many countries, and we're just one company.

More importantly, you're agreeing that government spending creates jobs. And this study shows there are more effective ways to spend that money if creating jobs is the goal.
 
2013-10-18 12:04:44 PM  

The Muthaship: If only it was possible to not have kids you can't provide for.


It is. It's done. The natural rate of increase in America is barely above replacement level. Replacement level is the lowest level which will maintain the population and also replace the workers with new workers. Drop below that level and you get "negative growth". This is bad for the economy except perhaps in the thinking of the more radical environmentalists, who welcome the prospect of the human race shrinking and doing less damage to the world through unsustainable growth and consumption.

By blaming the population that produces children (the proletariat, who subsist through the strength of the arms and the strength of their loins, as they have no real property) you are moralizing. This is generally the result of a failure to understand the material basis of production, consumption and thus culture.

Culture is based on excess production. You have to have more than enough to eat before you can spare the time and effort for "higher things". The Reverend Thomas Malthus, with his devout wish that a clergyman might have enough to pay for a little glass of sherry now and again, understood this. Darwin understood this. Marx understood this. Conservatives willfully or negligently do not understand this.

One, these people produce the workers. Many people do not breed, especially in those classes where intellectual and social and physical capital are required to support children as well as the producers.

It is a good thing they have too many children, or else you would have to have more of them yourself, or at least your women would.

Two, this surplus of production is another way that the workers support the superstructure of "thinkers" and capitalists. Their work is turned into profits (some legitimate and necessary for the reproduction of capital and capitalists, some not and what is called "windfall profits" or "economic rents").

In Commie mode, reproduction is theft. And guess what? State capitalists are just as happy ensuring that the workers over-produce themselves as crony or klepto- or regular capitalists.

The job of this class of people is to produce an excess of labourers and excess of gun fodder. That is their function. Why blame them for it? You're the one who profits from their losses. Why moralize?

Whoops! I've wanderer out of Marx and into Nietzsche. Can existentialism and nihilism be far away? Of course not. Like Death, they are always with you, everywhere, all of the time, invisible and waiting patiently to do their job in the great economy of things.
 
2013-10-18 12:04:58 PM  

Giltric: UrukHaiGuyz: The problem with many military projects is that they provide no further benefit once the paycheck's gone out.

He unironically posts on the internet.


Notice I didn't say all, and thanks for snipping the relevant part of my post. Research dollars are almost always well spent. Wars of aggression not so much.
 
2013-10-18 12:06:27 PM  
A lot of freepers showed up here to complain about how the country is made up of losers.  I gotta wonder though, what happens when these "freeloaders" outnumber you and are even more beat-down by society than they already are?

Just think about that one, dittoheads.
 
2013-10-18 12:07:12 PM  
This is the result of under funding education and the failure of making glolbalization work in the US. Its okay for big business to outsource but not real easy for other countries to do it here.
 
2013-10-18 12:07:19 PM  
By the way, whoever put that statue of Lenin there is an artistic genius.

Found art? Junk art? Performance art? Who cares?

It is as lovely, brilliant, funny, smart, subversive as a Banksy painting.
 
2013-10-18 12:09:50 PM  

GameSprocket: The Muthaship: If only it was possible to not have kids you can't provide for.

So, since we have established the difficulty in moving up the social ladder, you are really saying that only those who are from good families should ever be able to reproduce? Maybe we can just sterilize the poor, but then we would only have one generation Wal-Mart employees. Can't have that!


We are already one step away from that with planned parenthood pushing poor pregnant girls into the abortion mills. We may as well pay for it once and sterilize them so we aren't paying for multiple abortions from the same people.

It's always been crazy to me the way conservatives rail against abortion, when they should really be for it. They should be knocking down congress' door demanding abortions for poor minorites to help equalize the numbers of democrats at the future polls and it is soooooo much cheaper than supporting their future lazy asses in the long run.

Sure, hip hop music and professional sports may take a hit, but it will give some white guys with good fundamentals a chance to get back into the game.
 
2013-10-18 12:09:56 PM  

burning_bridge: A lot of freepers showed up here to complain about how the country is made up of losers.  I gotta wonder though, what happens when these "freeloaders" outnumber you and are even more beat-down by society than they already are?

Just think about that one, dittoheads.


theeasternblog.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-10-18 12:10:02 PM  

FarkedOver: Deedeemarz: How is that not cooperation? We all contribute to society and the economy in some way. If the worker doesn't like his role in the system, he can take action to change that role and contribute in some other way. Your statement sounds as if you are implying that we should all be able to sit on our asses having bons bons delievered in some magical way instead of working for what you want...

I'm not advocating for sitting on our asses.  I'm advocating worker control of the means of production and the elimination of the true moocher class, the 1%.


That's a great system for 19th century nation states whose economies are based on workers in factories making widgets.

You really expect an IT helpdesk associate whose job is to troubleshoot software for a financial consultant at a telecom company to "control the means of production"? The production of what? And how would they control it?
 
2013-10-18 12:12:08 PM  

pkellmey: bearcats1983: This is definitely a sad situation, but I still think some of the blame needs to go on the impoverished who continue the cycle from generation to generation. My family was incredibly low income when I was a kid, but my parents busted their arses at work (mom at pizza hut and the phone company, dad as a night shift pharm tech), went to school part time, and eventually got us out of the poverty hole. It took years and hundreds of "pancakes for dinner" type meals, but the cycle can definitely be broken.

I came from a large family in the upper-low income territory. However, every kid worked their way through school, and my parents always made sure we understood that education was the easiest way to succeed in life. Now, all the kids are at a minimum upper-middle class income after having graduated with awesome grade point averages and working much less hours now than the parents did. However, I now either know or work with masters and PHD students graduating from school and taking low paying jobs just to make ends meet because their target jobs just don't seem to be there for them. Things are really tough right now for even the educated (though it probably will change, maybe not too soon).


We come from similar family situations. Even at our poorest, my parents always stressed that education was the only way we would succeed in life.

Until just a couple years ago, I was the undergrad/grad school graduate working the low paying job. My first job was contract work that only paid $1200/month. I eventually moved on to the "better paying" job at $28k/year. It took me a good 7 years of working my arse off to be where I am income-wise now.
 
2013-10-18 12:13:09 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: FarkedOver: Deedeemarz: How is that not cooperation? We all contribute to society and the economy in some way. If the worker doesn't like his role in the system, he can take action to change that role and contribute in some other way. Your statement sounds as if you are implying that we should all be able to sit on our asses having bons bons delievered in some magical way instead of working for what you want...

I'm not advocating for sitting on our asses.  I'm advocating worker control of the means of production and the elimination of the true moocher class, the 1%.

That's a great system for 19th century nation states whose economies are based on workers in factories making widgets.

You really expect an IT helpdesk associate whose job is to troubleshoot software for a financial consultant at a telecom company to "control the means of production"? The production of what? And how would they control it?


I think they meant teachers should imprison their students.
 
2013-10-18 12:14:12 PM  

brantgoose: It is. It's done. The natural rate of increase in America is barely above replacement level. Replacement level is the lowest level which will maintain the population and also replace the workers with new workers. Drop below that level and you get "negative growth". This is bad for the economy except perhaps in the thinking of the more radical environmentalists, who welcome the prospect of the human race shrinking and doing less damage to the world through unsustainable growth and consumption.


Zero-to-negative population growth is the future.  Japan world.  Places like Turkey, Brazil, and Mexico are already at replacement-level fertility.  The US is an outlier among major western democracies for still having a near-replacement birth rate.

That die is already cast. Humanity will be under 10 billion, within the lifetime of many people reading today.  We aren't going to keep skimming off the growth fundamentally based on underlying 2% annual population growth (which is what we did in the 19th and 20th centuries). Nor could we, environmentally, forever and ever.

 If 'economics' can't handle steady-state solutions, we have to rewrite 'economics'.
 
2013-10-18 12:14:29 PM  
The article mentions that the qualifier for "low income schools" was tied to the number of kids receiving reduced cost lunches.  To qualify for the reduced cost lunch programs, your income is compared to 185% of the national poverty line.  Cost of living should be a factor.

The cost of living in some states is much less than that of others.  $41,000 in rural Arkansas may be a lot more comfortable than $65000 in California.
 
2013-10-18 12:16:26 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: You really expect an IT helpdesk associate whose job is to troubleshoot software for a financial consultant at a telecom company to "control the means of production"? The production of what? And how would they control it?


Socialism is not just for industrial workers.  It's for all workers of all countries every where.  The product is the software.  The software, like machines, needs repairs and needs people who understand it and how to operate it.  Your lack of vision in how to incorporate office workers within a socialist system is not my problem, but your own short sightedness.
 
2013-10-18 12:16:34 PM  
We sent our daughter to public school for kindergarten and first grade. My wife took a job as a substitute teacher at the same school. The behavior and discipline problems she saw starting in third grade and continuing on up to fifth grade convinced us to home school.

Sorry, but public schools are becoming a dumping ground for dysfunctional children. The competent children get ignored while the teacher tries to get hellions to pass the standardized tests. I'm really sorry I pulled my well-behaved, fairly bright, pleasant child out of public school. But as her parent my responsibility is to provide HER with the best education I can - and that was never going to happen in a public school. Private school was a little out of our reach financially, so we went with home school. So far its working out great.
 
2013-10-18 12:20:22 PM  

FarkedOver: Oh, ok. You volunteer to create a product from start to finish for someone who has completely emancipated themselves from labor. After you finish the product you have no choice in what happens to that product. Your employer sells that product and pays you a mere fraction of the total worth of the said product, even though you have created its entire value.

We volunteer for this because it is fair, right and just? No, we volunteer for this because we have no choice BUT to do this in order to live.



Your employer paid you, up front, out of savings, long before he ever connected with the buyer and got paid by him.  The employer therefore took the risk that you would make an un-sell-able product, or that the market price for the product would fall below the various costs of producing it (your wages, plus everything else that goes into the cost of running a business).  He takes the primary risk of paying all of those up-front costs, including employee wages, while the revenue generated from customers could be less than predicted.  It's called "making payroll" even when there's a temporary dip in revenue.

The employer also performs a lot of essential functions to sustain the enterprise, even if he does no direct labor in the manufacture of this hypothetical "product" you're thinking of.  He must, for starters, analyze the market for the product, and the markets for all of the factors of production he'll need to pay for in order to produce it (real estate, labor, suppliers, marketing, and all the rest), and identify the type of good that can be sold at a profit (i.e., not at a loss, costing more than it takes to make it).  In other words, the employer must identify an unmet (or undermet) consumer demand, which can be met more efficiently than others are attempting to meet it.  If you think you can do that, please give it a shot.

The employer has also marshaled all of the factors of production (the real estate, labor, suppliers, marketing, and all the rest), and coordinated them all into the production of some good.

He has made a connection with a buyer, and hopefully more than one, so that he can keep on selling these goods indefinitely.

He has adapted his mode of production whenever the identity of the good sold, or the way in which it's made, or any other of about 1,000 other things that go into the production of desired goods, as circumstances change (and they change constantly).

If the employer can perform all of these tasks well (and in larger enterprises, they are divided up among various specialists), then he gets paid, last.

The way he gets paid from the business is called "profit."  It's the portion of the revenue that's left over after everyone else gets paid for their contribution to the enterprise.

Employers who are better at these tasks than others tend to make more money, just like the people who are better at their specialized tasks tend to make more money.

Since you have clearly started and run zero businesses in your lifetime, you do not understand what goes into making a successful one.  The making of the actual good is only one of the essential elements.
 
2013-10-18 12:21:18 PM  
Hmmm... introduce the welfare state that destroys the traditional African-American family and replaces it with dependent single-mothers and an endless string of children abandoned by their fathers, who then perpetuate that lifestyle while (understandably) committing a disportionate amount of crime.  Import poverty with an open-border policy that allows millions of illiterate migrants who are only qualified to perform manual labor into the country, where they work in the black economy that doesn't contribute to the tax-base while they obtain services from the government, such as healthcare and education for the children, thereby lowering the standard of such services for everyone as more people take from the system than put into it.  Then create policies that encourage traditional middle-class jobs such as manufacturing to be transferred overseas because of tax-breaks, less regulations and lower labor costs.

Result: an expanding, dependent and increasingly sense of entitled, lower-class.  Then, sit back and act surprised that any of this surprises you.
 
2013-10-18 12:23:01 PM  

FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: You really expect an IT helpdesk associate whose job is to troubleshoot software for a financial consultant at a telecom company to "control the means of production"? The production of what? And how would they control it?

Socialism is not just for industrial workers.  It's for all workers of all countries every where.  The product is the software.  The software, like machines, needs repairs and needs people who understand it and how to operate it.  Your lack of vision in how to incorporate office workers within a socialist system is not my problem, but your own short sightedness.


You're just as smart as Lenin, I'll give you that.
 
2013-10-18 12:23:39 PM  

Phinn: Your employer paid you, up front, out of savings, long before he ever connected with the buyer and got paid by him. The employer therefore took the risk that you would make an un-sell-able product, or that the market price for the product would fall below the various costs of producing it (your wages, plus everything else that goes into the cost of running a business). He takes the primary risk of paying all of those up-front costs, including employee wages, while the revenue generated from customers could be less than predicted. It's called "making payroll" even when there's a temporary dip in revenue.

The employer also performs a lot of essential functions to sustain the enterprise, even if he does no direct labor in the manufacture of this hypothetical "product" you're thinking of. He must, for starters, analyze the market for the product, and the markets for all of the factors of production he'll need to pay for in order to produce it (real estate, labor, suppliers, marketing, and all the rest), and identify the type of good that can be sold at a profit (i.e., not at a loss, costing more than it takes to make it). In other words, the employer must identify an unmet (or undermet) consumer demand, which can be met more efficiently than others are attempting to meet it. If you think you can do that, please give it a shot.

The employer has also marshaled all of the factors of production (the real estate, labor, suppliers, marketing, and all the rest), and coordinated them all into the production of some good.

He has made a connection with a buyer, and hopefully more than one, so that he can keep on selling these goods indefinitely.

He has adapted his mode of production whenever the identity of the good sold, or the way in which it's made, or any other of about 1,000 other things that go into the production of desired goods, as circumstances change (and they change constantly).

If the employer can perform all of these tasks well (and in larger en ...


That was one of the longest blow jobs for capitalism I have ever seen on fark, impressive.  Congrats on you believing that "risk" is worth more than the blood sweat and tears of the majority of the world, who break their backs to line the pockets of the elite few though just so that they can live.  I'm sure your generous benefactors will kick some dinner scraps for your to lap up soon.
 
2013-10-18 12:24:15 PM  

FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: You really expect an IT helpdesk associate whose job is to troubleshoot software for a financial consultant at a telecom company to "control the means of production"? The production of what? And how would they control it?

Socialism is not just for industrial workers.  It's for all workers of all countries every where.  The product is the software.  The software, like machines, needs repairs and needs people who understand it and how to operate it.  Your lack of vision in how to incorporate office workers within a socialist system is not my problem, but your own short sightedness.


IT helpdesk workers typically don't produce software.

And somehow your inability to flesh out the system you're advocating beyond trite platitudes is my problem? Yeah, no. You sound like an undergrad who just took a comparative econ class and thinks he can solve the worlds financial crisis.

Don't worry, you'll eventually get a job one day and forget all about Mr. Engels.
 
2013-10-18 12:25:00 PM  

Fano: FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: You really expect an IT helpdesk associate whose job is to troubleshoot software for a financial consultant at a telecom company to "control the means of production"? The production of what? And how would they control it?

Socialism is not just for industrial workers.  It's for all workers of all countries every where.  The product is the software.  The software, like machines, needs repairs and needs people who understand it and how to operate it.  Your lack of vision in how to incorporate office workers within a socialist system is not my problem, but your own short sightedness.

You're just as smart as Lenin, I'll give you that.


You mean that as an insult, which is fine, considering you probably have never even read any of his writings... I take it as a compliment. Thank you.
 
2013-10-18 12:26:23 PM  

Otto_E_Rodika: Then, sit back and act surprised that any of this surprises you.


What surprises me is your focus on black families receiving welfare, as if they're the only ones who do.
 
2013-10-18 12:26:47 PM  

jaybeezey: It's always been crazy to me the way conservatives rail against abortion, when they should really be for it. They should be knocking down congress' door demanding abortions for poor minorites to help equalize the numbers of democrats at the future polls and it is soooooo much cheaper than supporting their future lazy asses in the long run.


Keep in mind that the conservative good old days is more Dickenson than Leave It To Beaver.
 
2013-10-18 12:28:03 PM  

FarkedOver: Congrats on you believing that "risk" is worth more than the blood sweat and tears of the majority of the world, who break their backs to line the pockets of the elite few

...


So, you've started zero businesses.  Got it.

Risk is the risk of losing savings.  Savings come from prior successful production.  Those savings are the blood, sweat and tears of other people.  When you denigrate it in one breath, you denigrate the people you are trying to praise in your next.
 
2013-10-18 12:28:32 PM  

FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: You really expect an IT helpdesk associate whose job is to troubleshoot software for a financial consultant at a telecom company to "control the means of production"? The production of what? And how would they control it?

Socialism is not just for industrial workers.  It's for all workers of all countries every where.  The product is the software.  The software, like machines, needs repairs and needs people who understand it and how to operate it.  Your lack of vision in how to incorporate office workers within a socialist system is not my problem, but your own short sightedness.


If it's such a great system, why did the Soviets fail?  They had all the resources to make it work.
 
2013-10-18 12:30:29 PM  

Phinn: So, you've started zero businesses. Got it.

Risk is the risk of losing savings. Savings come from prior successful production. Those savings are the blood, sweat and tears of other people. When you denigrate it in one breath, you denigrate the people you are trying to praise in your next.


What's your point? I'm not in the business of starting business ;) You've read zero on socialism or communism that's what I'm getting from that statement.
 
2013-10-18 12:31:24 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Marcintosh: Positive.  Roll.  Models.  Where can you get some?  I've looked online.  I've looked in the old phone books.  I've looked at sports.  I know better than to look to business.

Sadly the rich do not deign to live in poverty stricken areas for some reason, so they're no help.

Positive roll model:

[manhattaninfidel.com image 260x463]


I stand in awe of your AWESOMENESSLYISM
so beautiful . . .
 
2013-10-18 12:32:23 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: cefm: It's only in America where we appear to hate poor people and kick them in the teeth at every turn that this is true.

Reciprocal altruism implies that voters will dislike giving money to the poor if, as in the United States, the poor are perceived as lazy. In contrast, Europeans overwhelmingly believe that the poor are poor because they have been unfortunate. This difference in views is part of what is sometimes referred to as "American exceptionalism." Link


I've been trying to figure out for a while now how to have a meritocracy without punishing those who are unlucky.  I haven't gotten very far.
 
2013-10-18 12:32:26 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: If it's such a great system, why did the Soviets fail? They had all the resources to make it work.


Stalin.  His whole practice of "Socialism in one country" was bullshiat and anti-Marxist.  It's an international movement and failing to make it an international issue, you will be outspent by the capitalists and crushed by the capitalists every time.
 
2013-10-18 12:33:12 PM  
Still waiting to hear how socialism is any more voluntary than a mixed economy...
 
2013-10-18 12:34:24 PM  
That still counts as CHANGE and most of all it creates HOPE, false hope but still hope
 
2013-10-18 12:34:24 PM  

FarkedOver: Smeggy Smurf: If it's such a great system, why did the Soviets fail? They had all the resources to make it work.

Stalin.  His whole practice of "Socialism in one country" was bullshiat and anti-Marxist.  It's an international movement and failing to make it an international issue, you will be outspent by the capitalists and crushed by the capitalists every time.


How does that work with local choice and national sovereignty?
 
2013-10-18 12:35:17 PM  

FarkedOver: Smeggy Smurf: If it's such a great system, why did the Soviets fail? They had all the resources to make it work.

Stalin.  His whole practice of "Socialism in one country" was bullshiat and anti-Marxist.  It's an international movement and failing to make it an international issue, you will be outspent by the capitalists and crushed by the capitalists every time.


In your profile you describe yourself as an "anti-capitalist". Out of curiosity, what do you do for work?
 
2013-10-18 12:37:38 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: You really expect an IT helpdesk associate whose job is to troubleshoot software for a financial consultant at a telecom company to "control the means of production"? The production of what? And how would they control it?

Socialism is not just for industrial workers.  It's for all workers of all countries every where.  The product is the software.  The software, like machines, needs repairs and needs people who understand it and how to operate it.  Your lack of vision in how to incorporate office workers within a socialist system is not my problem, but your own short sightedness.

IT helpdesk workers typically don't produce software.

And somehow your inability to flesh out the system you're advocating beyond trite platitudes is my problem? Yeah, no. You sound like an undergrad who just took a comparative econ class and thinks he can solve the worlds financial crisis.

Don't worry, you'll eventually get a job one day and forget all about Mr. Engels.


So their expertise in troubleshooting and understanding the software excludes them from socialism? They're not really "workers", I mean I don't get what you're trying to say....

but no matter what I say at this point it will be a "trite platitude", and you'll just dismiss it offhand.
 
2013-10-18 12:37:45 PM  

FarkedOver: What's your point? I'm not in the business of starting business ;) You've read zero on socialism or communism that's what I'm getting from that statement.



I've read a lot of it.  It's all wrong in profound, fundamental ways.

My point is that only the free, voluntary trade of goods and services has the slightest chance of increasing wealth.

I completely agree that the poor and uneducated and weakest members of society have gotten the shaft in innumerable ways, since forever, but market freedom is not one of them.

Market freedom is actually rather rare in America, although it has an undeserved reputation for it.  Most unfree government measures are enacted for the benefit of the biggest businesses and crony-est insiders, with banking/finance/insurance being the biggest player, with energy and pharmaceuticals being the top two implementations of the interests of the banking/finance/insurance caste.
 
2013-10-18 12:39:08 PM  

BgJonson79: How does that work with local choice and national sovereignty?


ummm you don't understand the end goal of communism, do you?
 
2013-10-18 12:39:31 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Still waiting to hear how socialism is any more voluntary than a mixed economy...


easy, an economic system is involuntary. You can't choose not to participate in it without excluding yourself from society.
 
2013-10-18 12:39:35 PM  

BgJonson79: I've been trying to figure out for a while now how to have a meritocracy without punishing those who are unlucky. I haven't gotten very far.


We have to get the tools to people to pick up and start over. As other's have said, in the past you could be unlucky/make bad choices and still land on you feet, get a GED and land a job at a factory or the post office. Now higher education costs so much it is out of reach.


We also let the financially unsophisticated borrow too much.
 
2013-10-18 12:39:38 PM  

FarkedOver: BgJonson79: How does that work with local choice and national sovereignty?

ummm you don't understand the end goal of communism, do you?


Spell it out for me so I know we're on the same page.
 
2013-10-18 12:41:14 PM  

Anayalator: [i.qkme.me image 451x577]


I believe that's missing "government" in the handouts part.
 
2013-10-18 12:41:20 PM  

BgJonson79: FarkedOver: BgJonson79: How does that work with local choice and national sovereignty?

ummm you don't understand the end goal of communism, do you?

Spell it out for me so I know we're on the same page.


There are no borders.... people cannot be illegal... you catching my drift?
 
2013-10-18 12:42:02 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: BgJonson79: I've been trying to figure out for a while now how to have a meritocracy without punishing those who are unlucky. I haven't gotten very far.

We have to get the tools to people to pick up and start over. As other's have said, in the past you could be unlucky/make bad choices and still land on you feet, get a GED and land a job at a factory or the post office. Now higher education costs so much it is out of reach.


We also let the financially unsophisticated borrow too much.


Poor people get free cash for that too. I had to pay for my own education.
 
2013-10-18 12:42:38 PM  

FarkedOver: BgJonson79: FarkedOver: BgJonson79: How does that work with local choice and national sovereignty?

ummm you don't understand the end goal of communism, do you?

Spell it out for me so I know we're on the same page.

There are no borders.... people cannot be illegal... you catching my drift?


So how can they choose to live differently sans borders?
 
2013-10-18 12:42:43 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Otto_E_Rodika: Then, sit back and act surprised that any of this surprises you.

What surprises me is your focus on black families receiving welfare, as if they're the only ones who do.


Well, you can continue to ignore facts, but reality is that 40% of blacks live in poverty.  If you factor in low income households, then the number rises to 83%.  These numbers did not exist before the welfare state encouraged financial and lifestyle irresponsibility.  Or are you trying to imply that the poor in this country are overwhelming white?  Economic conditions are tied directly to social conditions.  The most stable, and financially successful, community in the US is Asian-Americans.  They value education and hard work.  Like Caucasians, they have to be discriminated against for entry to college less their numbers dominate class enrollment.

Break this down by race and social standards, and you will see a direct correlation between how people choose to live, what they value (education, family, industriousness, community), and where they are economically.
 
2013-10-18 12:43:36 PM  

BgJonson79: FarkedOver: BgJonson79: FarkedOver: BgJonson79: How does that work with local choice and national sovereignty?

ummm you don't understand the end goal of communism, do you?

Spell it out for me so I know we're on the same page.

There are no borders.... people cannot be illegal... you catching my drift?

So how can they choose to live differently sans borders?


What do you mean, I don't follow.
 
2013-10-18 12:44:50 PM  

FarkedOver: BgJonson79: FarkedOver: BgJonson79: FarkedOver: BgJonson79: How does that work with local choice and national sovereignty?

ummm you don't understand the end goal of communism, do you?

Spell it out for me so I know we're on the same page.

There are no borders.... people cannot be illegal... you catching my drift?

So how can they choose to live differently sans borders?

What do you mean, I don't follow.


No borders implies one government.  If there is one government, how can people choose to live under a different government with different laws?  The lack of choice, to me at least, implies lack of democracy.
 
2013-10-18 12:46:29 PM  

Otto_E_Rodika: Well, you can continue to ignore facts, but reality is that 40% of blacks live in poverty.


And the same amount of whites receive welfare, which is what your original statement was about.

Government dependency is a myth. 87% of the households receiving SNAP in any given month include an individual who worked in the prior year or will work in the following year.
 
2013-10-18 12:47:22 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Fissile: Of all developed countries the US has the lowest rate of social mobility.  The rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor.  The US as meritocracy is a lie.

Funny, I grew up poor as a military brat.  Now I'm not poor.  Funny how getting a career type job can fix that.


Tell me more about your life! I want to know how I can turn out, since obviously your circumstances and history and advantages are EXACTLY the same as everyone else's!  I mean, because if you're black, or hispanic or a woman or handicapped or have a mental illnes you'll get  considered for the exact same career type job, right?  And you'll get picked exactly the same amount of times as your white male counterpart right?  It works out the same for everyone, right? Thank god!

What size are your bootstraps?  Can I get them in red?
 
2013-10-18 12:47:38 PM  

BgJonson79: No borders implies one government. If there is one government, how can people choose to live under a different government with different laws? The lack of choice, to me at least, implies lack of democracy.


Your understanding of communism is flawed.  Communism is a classless, stateless society... i.e. no government.  The stage prior to communism is socialism a.k.a. the dictatorship of the proletariat.  The end goal of socialism is communism.  The state under socialism is to "wither away" as described by Marx, Engles and Later Lenin.

Feel free to check out any of their writings free www.marxists.org.  Because this shiat gets heavy duty.
 
2013-10-18 12:51:13 PM  

Thunderpipes: Free housing, free phone, free food, free cash.... Why would anyone want to stop being poor? It is hard work.


I've long thought that we ought to try an experiment in some locale: in return for our supporting you, you have to come sit in a room for 40 hours a week. That's all you need to do, just be present. We'll treat it like a job where you get vacation and sick days and holidays, but you otherwise can't leave without getting docked on your "pay". I'll bet you'd see quite a drop in people applying for benefits.
 
2013-10-18 12:51:50 PM  

FarkedOver: BgJonson79: No borders implies one government. If there is one government, how can people choose to live under a different government with different laws? The lack of choice, to me at least, implies lack of democracy.

Your understanding of communism is flawed.  Communism is a classless, stateless society... i.e. no government.  The stage prior to communism is socialism a.k.a. the dictatorship of the proletariat.  The end goal of socialism is communism.  The state under socialism is to "wither away" as described by Marx, Engles and Later Lenin.

Feel free to check out any of their writings free www.marxists.org.  Because this shiat gets heavy duty.


I'm a fairly stalwart Libertarian, and even I can't figure out how society can exist without government.  Care to give me a Reader's Digest example?
 
2013-10-18 12:52:35 PM  

Thunderpipes: Free housing, free phone, free food, free cash.... Why would anyone want to stop being poor? It is hard work.


MOAR.  You can have more and better quality of these things if you get them yourself.  That's one perspective I've learned to see, thanks Fark.  Poor people aren't kicking back in the projects saying, "This, this is the life"   Poverty sucks.  And they know it.  Most of them aren't able to change their circumstances.
 
2013-10-18 12:54:49 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Thunderpipes: Free housing, free phone, free food, free cash.... Why would anyone want to stop being poor? It is hard work.

MOAR.  You can have more and better quality of these things if you get them yourself.  That's one perspective I've learned to see, thanks Fark.  Poor people aren't kicking back in the projects saying, "This, this is the life"   Poverty sucks.  And they know it.  Most of them aren't able to change their circumstances.


The question is, why can't they?  Supremely unlucky?  Poor decision making?  I really don't know, and that's why I'm asking.
 
2013-10-18 12:55:47 PM  

BgJonson79: I'm a fairly stalwart Libertarian, and even I can't figure out how society can exist without government. Care to give me a Reader's Digest example?



They will create the New Soviet Man, who is so selfless that economic collectivism comes naturally to him.

I think that is supposed to occur right after unicorns return to the world and all the pixie dust makes the flowers bloom.
 
2013-10-18 12:57:35 PM  

Tom_Slick: I blame No Child Left Behind, public schools now teach to the test, their only concerns are attendance and the test.  Private schools (the good ones not the derpy creationist Christian schools) are actually still teaching like Public schools did 30 years ago, so if parents have the means and opportunity they are pulling their kids out.

Get rid of NCLB and maybe we can get some decent public schools again.


Or you could move to the north parts of the country. We aren't retarded.
 
2013-10-18 12:58:23 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Thunderpipes: Free housing, free phone, free food, free cash.... Why would anyone want to stop being poor? It is hard work.

MOAR.  You can have more and better quality of these things if you get them yourself.  That's one perspective I've learned to see, thanks Fark.  Poor people aren't kicking back in the projects saying, "This, this is the life"   Poverty sucks.  And they know it.  Most of them aren't able to change their circumstances.


Not to mention that if you live in a world with Thunderpipes you get your "free cash" (which you paid into every single paycheck while you were working if you're on unemployment) but then every single purchase you make is scrutinized as to whether or not you deserve it.  Don't forget, you can't use a refrigerator if you're on welfare.  You have to spend all day crying, clutching money to your chest, asking the first upstanding white Republican whether or not a turkey sandwich is ok to have for lunch or if that's too lush for a scumbag like yourself who was laid off from a full time position in the shiatty 2010 economy.

Being poor! Sign me up! I can't wait.
 
2013-10-18 12:59:55 PM  

BgJonson79: I'm a fairly stalwart Libertarian, and even I can't figure out how society can exist without government. Care to give me a Reader's Digest example?


I had this whole long written thing and I deleted it.  I thought to myself, wait a minute! I don't need to reinvent the wheel! Read the communist manifesto by marx/engles and I would read Principals of Communism by Engles.  Both are fairly short.  Engles is much much easier to read and is very plain spoken.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ in dex.htm

Further reading which is a bit longer, but still very interesting is The State and Revolution by Lenin

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/
 
2013-10-18 01:02:52 PM  

Phinn: BgJonson79: I'm a fairly stalwart Libertarian, and even I can't figure out how society can exist without government. Care to give me a Reader's Digest example?

They will create the New Soviet Man, who is so selfless that economic collectivism comes naturally to him.

I think that is supposed to occur right after unicorns return to the world and all the pixie dust makes the flowers bloom.


You should check out the pamphlet by Isaac Deutscher called On Socialist Man.  It's quite interesting.
 
2013-10-18 01:03:35 PM  

BgJonson79: Zeb Hesselgresser: Thunderpipes: Free housing, free phone, free food, free cash.... Why would anyone want to stop being poor? It is hard work.

MOAR.  You can have more and better quality of these things if you get them yourself.  That's one perspective I've learned to see, thanks Fark.  Poor people aren't kicking back in the projects saying, "This, this is the life"   Poverty sucks.  And they know it.  Most of them aren't able to change their circumstances.

The question is, why can't they?  Supremely unlucky?  Poor decision making?  I really don't know, and that's why I'm asking.


It's a skill set they have.  Said skill set has to include the ability to put forth an effort without immediate evidence of improvement.

/see just about everything worth doing
 
2013-10-18 01:03:57 PM  

BgJonson79: Zeb Hesselgresser: Thunderpipes: Free housing, free phone, free food, free cash.... Why would anyone want to stop being poor? It is hard work.

MOAR.  You can have more and better quality of these things if you get them yourself.  That's one perspective I've learned to see, thanks Fark.  Poor people aren't kicking back in the projects saying, "This, this is the life"   Poverty sucks.  And they know it.  Most of them aren't able to change their circumstances.

The question is, why can't they?  Supremely unlucky?  Poor decision making?  I really don't know, and that's why I'm asking.



Almost a total lack of entrepreneurial opportunities.  Once a society has been walled off from the rest of the world, there's very little anyone on the inside can do to create something out of nothing.  Housing projects are a hotbed of crime and child abuse, both of which perpetuate poverty.  Business don't want to start or remain in or near those areas, which creates an island that's virtually devoid of employers, and thus they see minimal economic growth.  The way that governments lay out cities, it's almost impossible for many poor people to get out to find employers.  Plus, the federal government's prohibition creates a black market for drugs, which creates the greatest opportunity for profit, but (being a black market) it also rewards the most violent participants.
 
2013-10-18 01:05:40 PM  
Zeb Hesselgresser:

It's a skill set they DON'T have.  Said skill set has to include the ability to put forth an effort without immediate evidence of improvement.

whoops
 
2013-10-18 01:07:10 PM  

BgJonson79: Zeb Hesselgresser: Thunderpipes: Free housing, free phone, free food, free cash.... Why would anyone want to stop being poor? It is hard work.

MOAR.  You can have more and better quality of these things if you get them yourself.  That's one perspective I've learned to see, thanks Fark.  Poor people aren't kicking back in the projects saying, "This, this is the life"   Poverty sucks.  And they know it.  Most of them aren't able to change their circumstances.

The question is, why can't they?  Supremely unlucky?  Poor decision making?  I really don't know, and that's why I'm asking.


Some people are continuously poor because of bad luck or decision making, I would never deny that, but more often it's because we live in a country where, like it or not, whether you have personal experience with it or not, white males are given more opportunities and "luck" than any other demographic.

Our country considers anyone dealing with a mental illness to be creepy and unreliable so they won't be given the same opportunities, particularly if you need to leave work occasionally for therapy or episodes of panic or depression.  Business don't want to or can't afford to employ the physically disabled.  People once marked as "the unwashed" (mentally ill, criminal record, drug or alcohol abuse) can never get rid of it and your past is a determining factor in your working future.  The factors that lead to a lifetime of poverty don't always have to do with bad behavior by the poor, no matter how much the Republican Party would like you to believe it.

We like to pride ourselves here in America on how anyone can accomplish anything if they put their mind to it, and how you can always make a change and hear that happy music at the end of an episode of Intervention, but employers are always going to take the easiest, smoothest road, as they can no longer afford to take chances on people with struggles in their past or people who pose even the slightest risk in the future.
 
2013-10-18 01:10:46 PM  

mediablitz: 30 years of stagnant wages, combined with rising costs. The top 1% controlling more wealth than any time in our nation's history. An economy designed to create service workers.

Are we supposed to be surprised that people are stuck in poverty?


Not at all. The system is working as intended.
 
2013-10-18 01:11:09 PM  
I'm sure telling the poor folk that they are stuck in poverty really helps them. I used to be poor. Now, I'm slightly better than poor. I can understand the need to fight social injustices, but it is even more important not to wallow. You can change yourself much easier than you can change the farking system.
 
2013-10-18 01:11:35 PM  

FarkedOver: BgJonson79: I'm a fairly stalwart Libertarian, and even I can't figure out how society can exist without government. Care to give me a Reader's Digest example?

I had this whole long written thing and I deleted it.  I thought to myself, wait a minute! I don't need to reinvent the wheel! Read the communist manifesto by marx/engles and I would read Principals of Communism by Engles.  Both are fairly short.  Engles is much much easier to read and is very plain spoken.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ in dex.htm

Further reading which is a bit longer, but still very interesting is The State and Revolution by Lenin

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/


I think that'd take a lot of human nature changes.  Or Star Trek-level physics changes, where resources are infinite because energy is.
 
2013-10-18 01:11:54 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Otto_E_Rodika: Well, you can continue to ignore facts, but reality is that 40% of blacks live in poverty.

And the same amount of whites receive welfare, which is what your original statement was about.

Government dependency is a myth. 87% of the households receiving SNAP in any given month include an individual who worked in the prior year or will work in the following year.


What's the weather like in your reality?

http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/

Here in ours, 12% of whites (non-Hispanic) live in poverty.  Blacks collect 40% of the welfare, but make up only 13% of the population, so when you compare that number to whites, you have to factor in how much of the US population is defined as white (non-Hispanic), which is currently 63%.  So in simple terms, you invite 100 people to a party, where you are serving 100 cheeseburgers.  13 black people eat 40 cheeseburgers.  And 63 white people eat 40 cheeseburgers.  So both the black and white people are eating the same number of cheeseburgers, but each individual black person is eating 3 cheeseburgers while each white person is eating just a little over half a cheeseburger.

Not that hard, is it?
 
2013-10-18 01:14:31 PM  

mediablitz: 30 years of stagnant wages, combined with rising costs. The top 1% controlling more wealth than any time in our nation's history. An economy designed to create service workers.

Are we supposed to be surprised that people are stuck in poverty?


Add in the fact that having children is a far too expensive proposition for the average american.

Day care costs about as a much as a college education and easy 10k a year per child, so parents are stuck with either having one of them stay home or shelling out the cash. Add in healthcare issues, job stagnation, 6-weeks UNPAID leave maximum time off for a new mom, it's simply not worth it.

Hell, even the trashiest dumbest people I know are only having 1 or 2 kids, and that's saying something.

Among my family, the only cousin of mine that ISN'T barely scrapping by because of having kids is only able to make it work because her Mom provides free babysitting and money assistance (I don't think her Dad is EVER going to retire, I know he paid for her wedding and I'm pretty sure he bought their house or at least gave them the down payment).

I'm so happy to be living in Canada now, I get 80% of my income for a year when I have a kid which goes a long way to reducing costs (For fark independents, my company doesn't pay the salary, it comes out of employment insurance).
 
2013-10-18 01:14:33 PM  

BgJonson79: I think that'd take a lot of human nature changes. Or Star Trek-level physics changes, where resources are infinite because energy is.


Not really.  That's usually the cop-out people give, "human nature".  Yes humans have the ability to be greedy.  We also have the ability to be cooperative, caring and compassionate.

The best way to describe human nature is:  the way a human being adapts to different social circumstances.
 
2013-10-18 01:15:59 PM  

Otto_E_Rodika: What's the weather like in your reality?


None of what you posted after this disputes what I posted about dependency. Government dependency is a myth.
 
2013-10-18 01:18:32 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Otto_E_Rodika: What's the weather like in your reality?

None of what you posted after this disputes what I posted about dependency. Government dependency is a myth.


Translation - "facts suck".
 
2013-10-18 01:18:49 PM  
And as the threshold for being considered "low income" has expanded, so has the purchasing power of that income. So there's that.
 
2013-10-18 01:18:54 PM  

Otto_E_Rodika: Here in ours, 12% of whites (non-Hispanic) live in poverty.


And this number comes from the Children Under 18 chart. And those are 2010 numbers.


Welfare Demographics
Percent of recipients who are white 38.8 %
Percent of recipients who are black 39.8 %
Percent of recipients who are Hispanic 15.7 %
Percent of recipients who are Asian 2.4 %
Percent of recipients who are Other 3.3 %
Research Date: 9.10.2013

None of the above proves dependency, as you claimed.
 
2013-10-18 01:20:13 PM  

Otto_E_Rodika: Translation - "facts suck".


What facts? You said poor black people are dependent on government. This isn't true simply because you say so.
 
2013-10-18 01:23:39 PM  

snocone: bearcats1983: This is definitely a sad situation, but I still think some of the blame needs to go on the impoverished who continue the cycle from generation to generation. My family was incredibly low income when I was a kid, but my parents busted their arses at work (mom at pizza hut and the phone company, dad as a night shift pharm tech), went to school part time, and eventually got us out of the poverty hole. It took years and hundreds of "pancakes for dinner" type meals, but the cycle can definitely be broken.

Not by the people stuck in it. Room to move comes from above.


Really? Sounds like bearcats' family did it.....so did my parents, so did my husband, so do lots of people every day. People who want the change and are willing to work to effect the change....
 
2013-10-18 01:25:56 PM  
Can I say BS on this from the rent a tire article?

"The tires on their Chevy Silverado were in terrible shape, too dangerous to be used for the long drive to his new job as an industrial painter. But they were such an odd size that the cheapest replacement set cost $1,340 at a regular tire store, far beyond Collins' budget. "

Really 300+ per tire?  Anyone know what size they are talking about?
 
2013-10-18 01:26:11 PM  

FarkedOver: BgJonson79: I think that'd take a lot of human nature changes. Or Star Trek-level physics changes, where resources are infinite because energy is.

Not really.  That's usually the cop-out people give, "human nature".  Yes humans have the ability to be greedy.  We also have the ability to be cooperative, caring and compassionate.

The best way to describe human nature is:  the way a human being adapts to different social circumstances.


Can we be cooperative, caring and compassionate enough with limited resources?
 
2013-10-18 01:27:57 PM  

BgJonson79: FarkedOver: BgJonson79: I think that'd take a lot of human nature changes. Or Star Trek-level physics changes, where resources are infinite because energy is.

Not really.  That's usually the cop-out people give, "human nature".  Yes humans have the ability to be greedy.  We also have the ability to be cooperative, caring and compassionate.

The best way to describe human nature is:  the way a human being adapts to different social circumstances.

Can we be cooperative, caring and compassionate enough with limited resources?


That is the time when we should be most cooperative.
 
2013-10-18 01:37:32 PM  

BgJonson79: Dusk-You-n-Me: cefm: It's only in America where we appear to hate poor people and kick them in the teeth at every turn that this is true.

Reciprocal altruism implies that voters will dislike giving money to the poor if, as in the United States, the poor are perceived as lazy. In contrast, Europeans overwhelmingly believe that the poor are poor because they have been unfortunate. This difference in views is part of what is sometimes referred to as "American exceptionalism." Link

I've been trying to figure out for a while now how to have a meritocracy without punishing those who are unlucky.  I haven't gotten very far.


Are they unlucky, or do they just make poor choices? I work in healthcare so I see a lot of really poor life choices, but very few truly unlucky folks who just got stuck in a bad situation. Many of the people I see made bad decisions--not one or two, but a lifetime's worth of bad decisions. Some of them made the same choices repeatedly as if they expected a different outcome. A lot of these people are ignorant, but not dumb. Ignorance is curable, and I think that would help them make better choices or change their luck, however you want to look at that. So now we are back at education again.
 
2013-10-18 01:38:27 PM  

FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: You really expect an IT helpdesk associate whose job is to troubleshoot software for a financial consultant at a telecom company to "control the means of production"? The production of what? And how would they control it?

Socialism is not just for industrial workers.  It's for all workers of all countries every where.  The product is the software.  The software, like machines, needs repairs and needs people who understand it and how to operate it.  Your lack of vision in how to incorporate office workers within a socialist system is not my problem, but your own short sightedness.

IT helpdesk workers typically don't produce software.

And somehow your inability to flesh out the system you're advocating beyond trite platitudes is my problem? Yeah, no. You sound like an undergrad who just took a comparative econ class and thinks he can solve the worlds financial crisis.

Don't worry, you'll eventually get a job one day and forget all about Mr. Engels.

So their expertise in troubleshooting and understanding the software excludes them from socialism? They're not really "workers", I mean I don't get what you're trying to say....

but no matter what I say at this point it will be a "trite platitude", and you'll just dismiss it offhand.


You've been unable to sufficiently express how a socialist model would work in the 21st century. The only thing I've dismissed offhand is your oversimplified generalizations that apply to industrial-era society.

In what way is a tech support employee supposed to control the means of production? How would they do that? What would happen to the person who owns the company, and the people who own stock in the company? What if a group of tech students want to start their own company and hire employees?

You're the one postulating an international socialist economy, so you get to explain how it would work in a real world level.
 
2013-10-18 01:40:46 PM  

Deedeemarz: Are they unlucky, or do they just make poor choices? I work in healthcare so I see a lot of really poor life choices, but very few truly unlucky folks who just got stuck in a bad situation. Many of the people I see made bad decisions--not one or two, but a lifetime's worth of bad decisions. Some of them made the same choices repeatedly as if they expected a different outcome. A lot of these people are ignorant, but not dumb. Ignorance is curable, and I think that would help them make better choices or change their luck, however you want to look at that. So now we are back at education again.


So 50% of our population are lazy and stupid is what you are saying?  Not that we have had a retardedly low minimum wage for years, horrible wage stagnation for middle to lower incomed families, and a whole government party that their only plan is to widen the gap between poor and rich.
 
2013-10-18 01:42:48 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: You've been unable to sufficiently express how a socialist model would work in the 21st century. The only thing I've dismissed offhand is your oversimplified generalizations that apply to industrial-era society.

In what way is a tech support employee supposed to control the means of production? How would they do that? What would happen to the person who owns the company, and the people who own stock in the company? What if a group of tech students want to start their own company and hire employees?

You're the one postulating an international socialist economy, so you get to explain how it would work in a real world level.


You've been dickish to me.  My turn.  You really can't critically think of a way to apply Marxism to the 21st century workforce without having me spell it out for you?
 
2013-10-18 01:45:17 PM  

FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: You've been unable to sufficiently express how a socialist model would work in the 21st century. The only thing I've dismissed offhand is your oversimplified generalizations that apply to industrial-era society.

In what way is a tech support employee supposed to control the means of production? How would they do that? What would happen to the person who owns the company, and the people who own stock in the company? What if a group of tech students want to start their own company and hire employees?

You're the one postulating an international socialist economy, so you get to explain how it would work in a real world level.

You've been dickish to me.  My turn.  You really can't critically think of a way to apply Marxism to the 21st century workforce without having me spell it out for you?


No, I can't. And I suspect you can't either, or else you would have by now.
 
2013-10-18 01:45:27 PM  

TNel: Not that we have had a retardedly low minimum wage for years, horrible wage stagnation for middle to lower incomed families, and a whole government party that their only plan is to widen the gap between poor and rich.


It's so much easier just to blame people without considering anything external to their circumstance. And welfare is a double whammy because, as we've seen in this very thread, it feeds that racial resentment that the RW has been stirring for decades.
 
2013-10-18 01:46:43 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: No, I can't. And I suspect you can't either, or else you would have by now.


Haha, I certainly could but then you would give me some amateur Gordon Gecko like trite platitude, so what's the use?
 
2013-10-18 01:47:58 PM  

mediablitz: 30 years of stagnant wages, combined with rising costs. The top 1% controlling more wealth than any time in our nation's history. An economy designed to create service workers.

Are we supposed to be surprised that people are stuck in poverty?


Reagan and Thatcher. What a great team they were.
 
2013-10-18 01:48:19 PM  

whatshisname: mediablitz: 30 years of stagnant wages, combined with rising costs. The top 1% controlling more wealth than any time in our nation's history. An economy designed to create service workers.

Are we supposed to be surprised that people are stuck in poverty?

Reagan and Thatcher. What a great team they were.


Only the good die young.
 
2013-10-18 01:48:24 PM  

Tom_Slick: DrewCurtisJr: Tom_Slick: Get rid of NCLB and maybe we can get some decent public schools again.

What? The reason we have NCLB is because the public schools weren't doing well, especially with low income students.

It was a good idea, but it didn't work. Look to Atlanta Public Schools.  Funding is tied up with that test so bad schools only teach the kids to pass the test.  So what we end up with is a bunch of kids who spend 12 years only learning how to take standardized tests.


All this talk about teaching the test always left me wondering, do people know in advance what the questions are? If they don't then the students would still need to learn all the info and be able to draw conclusions from said info. If they do, who the fark thought that was a good idea?
 
2013-10-18 01:50:21 PM  
Oh so this is where all the Fark cons are hanging out today! I know a good, old fashioned poor hate thread is just what you need to get back on your feet again.
 
2013-10-18 01:53:01 PM  

uber humper: [www.betterthanpants.com image 704x272] If all you do is hope, you won't see any change


How about instead of hoping for a wage increases, we change the law and force employers to pay Americans a living minimum wage?
 
2013-10-18 01:53:48 PM  

verbaltoxin: Oh so this is where all the Fark cons are hanging out today! I know a good, old fashioned poor hate thread is just what you need to get back on your feet again.


Haven't you read the thread? A lot of it is how to create another communist utopia without an instruction manual.
 
2013-10-18 01:53:55 PM  

Deedeemarz: BgJonson79: Dusk-You-n-Me: cefm: It's only in America where we appear to hate poor people and kick them in the teeth at every turn that this is true.

Reciprocal altruism implies that voters will dislike giving money to the poor if, as in the United States, the poor are perceived as lazy. In contrast, Europeans overwhelmingly believe that the poor are poor because they have been unfortunate. This difference in views is part of what is sometimes referred to as "American exceptionalism." Link

I've been trying to figure out for a while now how to have a meritocracy without punishing those who are unlucky.  I haven't gotten very far.

Are they unlucky, or do they just make poor choices? I work in healthcare so I see a lot of really poor life choices, but very few truly unlucky folks who just got stuck in a bad situation. Many of the people I see made bad decisions--not one or two, but a lifetime's worth of bad decisions. Some of them made the same choices repeatedly as if they expected a different outcome. A lot of these people are ignorant, but not dumb. Ignorance is curable, and I think that would help them make better choices or change their luck, however you want to look at that. So now we are back at education again.


Here's the thing, though: what do you call it if you've never been taught how to make good choices?  Isn't that luck (e.g, lucky enough to have parents who know or to go to a school that actually cares about teaching rather than testing)?

Upward mobility in America is pretty low.  The single biggest predictor for success in education is family income - and education predicts future income.  It's a cycle that can only be broken in extraordinary circumstances.  If you've never been taught why x choice is good and y choice is bad, it's unreasonable to hold you accountable for choosing y instead of x.
 
2013-10-18 01:55:33 PM  

FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: No, I can't. And I suspect you can't either, or else you would have by now.

Haha, I certainly could but then you would give me some amateur Gordon Gecko like trite platitude, so what's the use?


It really seems like you're using every excuse possible as to why you aren't. Maybe you can explain how socialism would work in the 21st century but just want to keep it a secret all to yourself?

If you provided a sincere as reasonable explanation I wouldn't dismiss it. I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious as I am unable to imagine how it would work in modern society.
 
2013-10-18 01:56:43 PM  
www.examiner.com
 
2013-10-18 02:02:09 PM  

pkellmey: verbaltoxin: Oh so this is where all the Fark cons are hanging out today! I know a good, old fashioned poor hate thread is just what you need to get back on your feet again.

Haven't you read the thread? A lot of it is how to create another communist utopia without an instruction manual.


that's all 1 dude... that said it is nice to see someone as far left as the derpers responding to him are to the right.
 
2013-10-18 02:13:52 PM  

Deedeemarz: snocone: bearcats1983: This is definitely a sad situation, but I still think some of the blame needs to go on the impoverished who continue the cycle from generation to generation. My family was incredibly low income when I was a kid, but my parents busted their arses at work (mom at pizza hut and the phone company, dad as a night shift pharm tech), went to school part time, and eventually got us out of the poverty hole. It took years and hundreds of "pancakes for dinner" type meals, but the cycle can definitely be broken.

Not by the people stuck in it. Room to move comes from above.

Really? Sounds like bearcats' family did it.....so did my parents, so did my husband, so do lots of people every day. People who want the change and are willing to work to effect the change....


That's right.  There's NO outside circumstance or situation that could negatively affect your go get 'em attitude!  Oh, unless you're disabled.  Or black, or a woman with children, or have a criminal record, or a substance abuse problem.  Other than that...all you need is a happy attitude and a good pair of bootstraps and you can be as judgemental and white as everyone in this thread!
 
2013-10-18 02:14:09 PM  

FarkedOver: BgJonson79: How does that work with local choice and national sovereignty?

ummm you don't understand the end goal of communism, do you?


The death of all the kulaks?
 
2013-10-18 02:14:46 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: No, I can't. And I suspect you can't either, or else you would have by now.

Haha, I certainly could but then you would give me some amateur Gordon Gecko like trite platitude, so what's the use?

It really seems like you're using every excuse possible as to why you aren't. Maybe you can explain how socialism would work in the 21st century but just want to keep it a secret all to yourself?

If you provided a sincere as reasonable explanation I wouldn't dismiss it. I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious as I am unable to imagine how it would work in modern society.


I think your hangup is that they aren't producing a tangible product.... I mean they are producing a service and they are putting labor into it.  Labor isn't just swinging a pick or working on an assembly line with machinery labor involves the brain as well, and that in and of itself can be labor.

Now, the means of production and workers control.  What is another word for the means of production? Capital! These workers can seize the capital from the capitalist.  Capital doesn't mean just money..... it's money and machines and the means of production all that good stuff.  The workers could take control of the building from the owner and run the workplace via democratic centralism.

There ya go.  Bon apetit
 
2013-10-18 02:15:23 PM  

Fano: FarkedOver: BgJonson79: How does that work with local choice and national sovereignty?

ummm you don't understand the end goal of communism, do you?

The death of all the kulaks?


Were you born retarded or do you have to work at it?
 
2013-10-18 02:18:04 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: You really expect an IT helpdesk associate whose job is to troubleshoot software for a financial consultant at a telecom company to "control the means of production"? The production of what? And how would they control it?

Socialism is not just for industrial workers.  It's for all workers of all countries every where.  The product is the software.  The software, like machines, needs repairs and needs people who understand it and how to operate it.  Your lack of vision in how to incorporate office workers within a socialist system is not my problem, but your own short sightedness.

IT helpdesk workers typically don't produce software.

And somehow your inability to flesh out the system you're advocating beyond trite platitudes is my problem? Yeah, no. You sound like an undergrad who just took a comparative econ class and thinks he can solve the worlds financial crisis.

Don't worry, you'll eventually get a job one day and forget all about Mr. Engels.

So their expertise in troubleshooting and understanding the software excludes them from socialism? They're not really "workers", I mean I don't get what you're trying to say....

but no matter what I say at this point it will be a "trite platitude", and you'll just dismiss it offhand.

You've been unable to sufficiently express how a socialist model would work in the 21st century. The only thing I've dismissed offhand is your oversimplified generalizations that apply to industrial-era society.

In what way is a tech support employee supposed to control the means of production? How would they do that? What would happen to the person who owns the company, and the people who own stock in the company? What if a group of tech students want to start their own company and hire employees?

You're the one postulating an international socialist economy, so you get to explain how it would work in a real world level.


It works like the Fiddlers Green region of the Big Rock Candy Mountains,in the Kingdom/anarchist syndicate commune of Prester John.
 
2013-10-18 02:25:24 PM  

2xcited: Hey waity a minute, did not LBJ and the Democrats say that spending on the Great Society, and declaring "War on Poverty," would eliminate this problem!  Sixteen trillion later I am still reading articles like this and listening to ads about one in eight children are hungry.  Holy Shiat and now we turned over Healthcare to these Bozo's.


While it hasn't been a complete success, the war on poverty has reduced hunger and malnutrition (obesity is a problem among the poor now, this has never happened in history) and reduced violence (along with unleaded gasoline and abortion), and increased intelligence (along with unleaded gasoline)

If we had universal healthcare, the poverty rolls would be drastically reduced in a generation. Medical bills are the number one reason for bankruptcy, too many middle-class families lose everything when someone gets sick. My brother was born handicapped and my Dad lost his medical practice and his health as a result. This resulted in many years of poverty that my parents are just crawling out of, the school lunch program and social security was a godsend for us.
 
2013-10-18 02:27:41 PM  
I think what it boils down to for a lot of Farkers is that by assigning a negative characterization to those who live in poverty (e.g. they're all drug addicts, they're all lazy, they're all abusing the system, they're all irresponsible jagwads) then we can dismiss them as getting the life they deserve, rather than having to expend any kind of energy, mental or otherwise in an effort to help them out of their poverty via hiring them, volunteering time for something like Habitat for Humanity or, God forbid, paying a couple dollars more in tax to pay for subsidized daycare, healthcare, safe schooling for children and adults.

I have a good friend who is a research scientist working on treatments and possibly cures for lung cancer.  Unfortunately, she's found that it's one of the least funded and publicized cancers.  The work to get an ongoing grant for lung cancer is fifty times harder than a grant for breast cancer, because in their minds, the public has decided "People who get lung cancer must have been smokers and so they deserve this punishment".

We're so focused on punishing those who violate our sunshiny view of life that those who truly need our help because life just dealt them the shiattiest hand possible slip through the cracks.  Personally, if some of my tax dollars go to help a young widow with three children and no family to help, who needs a place to live and a better education to get a higher paying job, then I'm willing to let the ever elusive 'welfare queen' who dares to buy an air conditioner with her check get by without a public lashing.  Why are we so concerned with the perpetually poor getting a few extra pennies when the billionaires are fleecing the entire country by the second every day?
 
2013-10-18 02:28:06 PM  

uber humper: FarkedOver: This should be at every school:

[i1.wp.com image 500x714]

If you believe that shiat, you've bought yourself a wasted life.  If you want to help society, learn some skills and pitch into the economy --  otherwise, you're a drag


Yes, overcome a poor education with no money and go to college (again with no money) to get a job where you'll make less and less money every year while a few people keep raking in more and more and use that money to make sure you stay down where you belong.

True communism has not happened yet but it is kind of inevitable.
 
2013-10-18 02:38:14 PM  

patrick767: If we'd stop using mostly local funding for public schools, we'd go a long way toward solving our horribly inequitable public school system. Of course I doubt that will ever happen in most states. The suburbanites with the money have power and a vested interest in making sure their kids have the best funded public schools (if they don't send their kids to private schools). Fark those poor people in the inner city.


While I do agree with this, another farker mentioned to me that her school district and the PTA association does a huge drive to parents for "a charitable contribution of $1,000 per child". They apparently had a 90% donation rate from parents. I'm willing to bet school districts would turn to tatics like this.

IMHO, we need to knock down walls and amalgamate school districts, get rid of overhead costs and the crapton of "admins" that have taken over education, both public and college.
 
2013-10-18 02:45:02 PM  

hitlersbrain: uber humper: FarkedOver: This should be at every school:

[i1.wp.com image 500x714]

If you believe that shiat, you've bought yourself a wasted life.  If you want to help society, learn some skills and pitch into the economy --  otherwise, you're a drag

Yes, overcome a poor education with no money and go to college (again with no money) to get a job where you'll make less and less money every year while a few people keep raking in more and more and use that money to make sure you stay down where you belong.

True communism has not happened yet but it is kind of inevitable.


Repeats of the French Revolution are inevitable. True Communism still has to solve that pesky step 2 underpants gnome problem that leads to the State withering away with everyone happy and equal.
 
2013-10-18 02:49:18 PM  

Fano: Repeats of the French Revolution are inevitable. True Communism still has to solve that pesky step 2 underpants gnome problem that leads to the State withering away with everyone happy and equal.


Each statement you make about communism shows just how ignorant you truly are about it.  It's quite impressive.
 
2013-10-18 02:52:50 PM  

teenytinycornteeth: Deedeemarz: snocone: bearcats1983: This is definitely a sad situation, but I still think some of the blame needs to go on the impoverished who continue the cycle from generation to generation. My family was incredibly low income when I was a kid, but my parents busted their arses at work (mom at pizza hut and the phone company, dad as a night shift pharm tech), went to school part time, and eventually got us out of the poverty hole. It took years and hundreds of "pancakes for dinner" type meals, but the cycle can definitely be broken.

Not by the people stuck in it. Room to move comes from above.

Really? Sounds like bearcats' family did it.....so did my parents, so did my husband, so do lots of people every day. People who want the change and are willing to work to effect the change....

That's right.  There's NO outside circumstance or situation that could negatively affect your go get 'em attitude!  Oh, unless you're disabled.  Or black, or a woman with children, or have a criminal record, or a substance abuse problem.  Other than that...all you need is a happy attitude and a good pair of bootstraps and you can be as judgemental and white as everyone in this thread!


"Look what I built, all by myself"!
Or, you could go all Duck Dynasty and blame good luck.
So comforting to know you can still count on a li'l chump change to keep 'em barefoot 'n pregnant, filled with Hope and Change.
 
2013-10-18 02:53:06 PM  

teenytinycornteeth: I think what it boils down to for a lot of Farkers is that by assigning a negative characterization to those who live in poverty (e.g. they're all drug addicts, they're all lazy, they're all abusing the system, they're all irresponsible jagwads) then we can dismiss them as getting the life they deserve, rather than having to expend any kind of energy, mental or otherwise in an effort to help them out of their poverty via hiring them, volunteering time for something like Habitat for Humanity or, God forbid, paying a couple dollars more in tax to pay for subsidized daycare, healthcare, safe schooling for children and adults.

I have a good friend who is a research scientist working on treatments and possibly cures for lung cancer.  Unfortunately, she's found that it's one of the least funded and publicized cancers.  The work to get an ongoing grant for lung cancer is fifty times harder than a grant for breast cancer, because in their minds, the public has decided "People who get lung cancer must have been smokers and so they deserve this punishment".

We're so focused on punishing those who violate our sunshiny view of life that those who truly need our help because life just dealt them the shiattiest hand possible slip through the cracks.  Personally, if some of my tax dollars go to help a young widow with three children and no family to help, who needs a place to live and a better education to get a higher paying job, then I'm willing to let the ever elusive 'welfare queen' who dares to buy an air conditioner with her check get by without a public lashing.  Why are we so concerned with the perpetually poor getting a few extra pennies when the billionaires are fleecing the entire country by the second every day?


Well said.
 
2013-10-18 02:56:55 PM  

shifty lookin bleeder: [i1.ytimg.com image 850x478]


At least Lacey is in there.
 
2013-10-18 02:59:58 PM  

Fano: hitlersbrain: uber humper: FarkedOver: This should be at every school:

[i1.wp.com image 500x714]

If you believe that shiat, you've bought yourself a wasted life.  If you want to help society, learn some skills and pitch into the economy --  otherwise, you're a drag

Yes, overcome a poor education with no money and go to college (again with no money) to get a job where you'll make less and less money every year while a few people keep raking in more and more and use that money to make sure you stay down where you belong.

True communism has not happened yet but it is kind of inevitable.

Repeats of the French Revolution are inevitable. True Communism still has to solve that pesky step 2 underpants gnome problem that leads to the State withering away with everyone happy and equal.


Managing complex systems fairly? Technology... always to our rescue. It's really humanity's only trick. What's kind of funny is that it's development is being financed by people with money to replace our labor with machines to save a few pennies. With the proper motivation and attitude, Communism is probably possible today.
 
2013-10-18 03:05:41 PM  

hitlersbrain: Fano: hitlersbrain: uber humper: FarkedOver: This should be at every school:

[i1.wp.com image 500x714]

If you believe that shiat, you've bought yourself a wasted life.  If you want to help society, learn some skills and pitch into the economy --  otherwise, you're a drag

Yes, overcome a poor education with no money and go to college (again with no money) to get a job where you'll make less and less money every year while a few people keep raking in more and more and use that money to make sure you stay down where you belong.

True communism has not happened yet but it is kind of inevitable.

Repeats of the French Revolution are inevitable. True Communism still has to solve that pesky step 2 underpants gnome problem that leads to the State withering away with everyone happy and equal.

Managing complex systems fairly? Technology... always to our rescue. It's really humanity's only trick. What's kind of funny is that it's development is being financed by people with money to replace our labor with machines to save a few pennies. With the proper motivation and attitude, Communism is probably possible today.


Well sure, with data collection the Stasi and KGB would have creamed themselves for, a communist dictatorship is even easier than ever. The Chinese may have perfected a commie/crony capitalism situation.

But we'll never know, because True Communism has never, and will never, be tried. Just like True Libertarianism.
 
2013-10-18 03:14:19 PM  

Otto_E_Rodika: Hmmm... introduce the welfare state that destroys the traditional African-American family and replaces it with dependent single-mothers and an endless string of children abandoned by their fathers, who then perpetuate that lifestyle while (understandably) committing a disportionate amount of crime.  Import poverty with an open-border policy that allows millions of illiterate migrants who are only qualified to perform manual labor into the country, where they work in the black economy that doesn't contribute to the tax-base while they obtain services from the government, such as healthcare and education for the children, thereby lowering the standard of such services for everyone as more people take from the system than put into it.  Then create policies that encourage traditional middle-class jobs such as manufacturing to be transferred overseas because of tax-breaks, less regulations and lower labor costs.

Result: an expanding, dependent and increasingly sense of entitled, lower-class.  Then, sit back and act surprised that any of this surprises you.



It seems obvious to a few of us.
 
2013-10-18 03:21:16 PM  
Figuring out to allocate limited financial resources is hard and contentious.
Better to have infinite financial resources to allocate.
Thanks beard brothers.

graphics8.nytimes.com

theeconomiccollapseblog.com
 
2013-10-18 03:25:40 PM  

Lawnchair: brantgoose: It is. It's done. The natural rate of increase in America is barely above replacement level. Replacement level is the lowest level which will maintain the population and also replace the workers with new workers. Drop below that level and you get "negative growth". This is bad for the economy except perhaps in the thinking of the more radical environmentalists, who welcome the prospect of the human race shrinking and doing less damage to the world through unsustainable growth and consumption.

Zero-to-negative population growth is the future.  Japan world.  Places like Turkey, Brazil, and Mexico are already at replacement-level fertility.  The US is an outlier among major western democracies for still having a near-replacement birth rate.

That die is already cast. Humanity will be under 10 billion, within the lifetime of many people reading today.  We aren't going to keep skimming off the growth fundamentally based on underlying 2% annual population growth (which is what we did in the 19th and 20th centuries). Nor could we, environmentally, forever and ever.

 If 'economics' can't handle steady-state solutions, we have to rewrite 'economics'.


This will overall be a good thing.

One of the reasons the Renaissance happened was the Black Plague killed off a good third of population of Europe, which raised labor wages and helped dismantle the feudal system.
 
2013-10-18 03:31:54 PM  

Fano: Well sure, with data collection the Stasi and KGB would have creamed themselves for, a communist dictatorship is even easier than ever. The Chinese may have perfected a commie/crony capitalism situation.

But we'll never know, because True Communism has never, and will never, be tried. Just like True Libertarianism.


Well, the forces you mention are the exact same people as the greedy rich in America. The rich are trying to pull the same stuff, just power hungry insanity. We currently have (or perhaps HAD) a system where greed was kept in check by the power of government. We called it Capitalism but it's really Regulated Capitalism. This is a system doomed to failure as the rich get richer and more powerful. They've already convinced a lot of gullible people that it's best to just let them run things without the regulation part. Then it's just back to a garbage society run by kings and queens until they go too far and get the deaths they deserve.

Something like Communism seems pretty inevitable.
 
2013-10-18 03:40:11 PM  

hitlersbrain: Fano: Well sure, with data collection the Stasi and KGB would have creamed themselves for, a communist dictatorship is even easier than ever. The Chinese may have perfected a commie/crony capitalism situation.

But we'll never know, because True Communism has never, and will never, be tried. Just like True Libertarianism.

Well, the forces you mention are the exact same people as the greedy rich in America. The rich are trying to pull the same stuff, just power hungry insanity. We currently have (or perhaps HAD) a system where greed was kept in check by the power of government. We called it Capitalism but it's really Regulated Capitalism. This is a system doomed to failure as the rich get richer and more powerful. They've already convinced a lot of gullible people that it's best to just let them run things without the regulation part. Then it's just back to a garbage society run by kings and queens until they go too far and get the deaths they deserve.

Something like Communism seems pretty inevitable.


No doubt about it.  But he is part right in the fact there there will be a Red Terror, much like there was a terror in France (a bourgeois revolution).  As workers step up and assert control there will be a backlash.  The proletariat will have to defend itself and the revolution and actively suppress bourgeois tenancies.  I'm ok with this.
 
2013-10-18 03:42:13 PM  
The wealthy: If we put a good education out of the reach of most people, we'll have a never-ending source of cheap labor.
Brilliant!
 
2013-10-18 03:51:28 PM  

cefm: In America, that is.  Being "low income" as young parents of a young child is not unusual or unexpected.  Young people are the ones having kids (they're fertile after all) and young people are unlikely to be fully established in their careers yet - they are much more likely to have lower incomes, even if they're on a good career trajectory.  Furthermore, having a young child can frequently mean reduced work hours for one or both parents or even one parent not in the workforce at all which really craters income.

In the rest of the civilized modern industrialized wealthy countries of the world, this is just normal, and there's no reason to believe that the child will be starving, unhealthy, uneducated or deprived access to the tools needed to grow up to be successful.  The parents either, for that matter.

It's only in America where we appear to hate poor people and kick them in the teeth at every turn that this is true.  Assistance for food, rent, education, childcare is pathetic.  If you're working poor and you have a kid, you're farked.  If you're in a good career but raising a kid by yourself you're pretty farked too for that matter.


Commie.

Don't you know that punishing poor people for being poor is the only way to help them?

It's in the bible:
Deuteronomy 15:11: For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, say, "fark those people. I got mine."

It's in the American version, not the socialist versions that talk about helping the poor by feeding and clothing them.
 
2013-10-18 03:53:52 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Otto_E_Rodika: Then, sit back and act surprised that any of this surprises you.

What surprises me is your focus on black families receiving welfare, as if they're the only ones who do.


He mentioned illegal immigrants. Just what we need now, amnesty
 
2013-10-18 03:59:30 PM  

jim32rr: He mentioned illegal immigrants. Just what we need now, amnesty


okay
 
2013-10-18 04:40:37 PM  

FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: No, I can't. And I suspect you can't either, or else you would have by now.

Haha, I certainly could but then you would give me some amateur Gordon Gecko like trite platitude, so what's the use?

It really seems like you're using every excuse possible as to why you aren't. Maybe you can explain how socialism would work in the 21st century but just want to keep it a secret all to yourself?

If you provided a sincere as reasonable explanation I wouldn't dismiss it. I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious as I am unable to imagine how it would work in modern society.

I think your hangup is that they aren't producing a tangible product.... I mean they are producing a service and they are putting labor into it.  Labor isn't just swinging a pick or working on an assembly line with machinery labor involves the brain as well, and that in and of itself can be labor.

Now, the means of production and workers control.  What is another word for the means of production? Capital! These workers can seize the capital from the capitalist.  Capital doesn't mean just money..... it's money and machines and the means of production all that good stuff.  The workers could take control of the building from the owner and run the workplace via democratic centralism.

There ya go.  Bon apetit


Alright, thanks or the reply. But I don't think a group of helpdesk employees are interested in storming a boardroom and taking control of the building. I just don't see that happening, or if it did, with the helpdesk folks successfully running the company.
 
2013-10-18 04:48:56 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Alright, thanks or the reply. But I don't think a group of helpdesk employees are interested in storming a boardroom and taking control of the building. I just don't see that happening, or if it did, with the helpdesk folks successfully running the company.


Certainly not.  They would not be the ones to start a revolution, eventually they would get swept up in the cause.
 
2013-10-18 04:51:13 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Alright, thanks or the reply. But I don't think a group of helpdesk employees are interested in storming a boardroom and taking control of the building. I just don't see that happening, or if it did, with the helpdesk folks successfully running the company.


Further, I will say that amongst the left there isn't enough done to reach out toward office employees. There is a disconnect between the office worker and a revolutionary class awakening.  I blame that mostly on leftist getting caught up in minutiae and petty sectarian squabbles.  Once the left figures out how to reach these workers, things could change rapidly.
 
2013-10-18 05:08:50 PM  

lilbjorn: The wealthy: If we put a good education out of the reach of most people, we'll have a never-ending source of cheap labor.
Brilliant!


Yes, those wealthy bastards encouraging poor people to drop out of school.
 
2013-10-18 05:13:29 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: lilbjorn: The wealthy: If we put a good education out of the reach of most people, we'll have a never-ending source of cheap labor.
Brilliant!

Yes, those wealthy bastards encouraging poor people to drop out of school.


More "forcing", or "creating the socioeconomic situations that most likely lead to that result" through things like denying cheap medical care or contraceptive services or not paying wages that blue-collar workers can live on.
 
2013-10-18 05:19:10 PM  

obenchainr: More "forcing", or "creating the socioeconomic situations that most likely lead to that result" through things like denying cheap medical care or contraceptive services or not paying wages that blue-collar workers can live on.


All the more incentives to stay in school.
 
2013-10-18 05:21:44 PM  

Into the blue again: Tom_Slick: I blame No Child Left Behind, public schools now teach to the test, their only concerns are attendance and the test.  Private schools (the good ones not the derpy creationist Christian schools) are actually still teaching like Public schools did 30 years ago, so if parents have the means and opportunity they are pulling their kids out.

Get rid of NCLB and maybe we can get some decent public schools again.

Or you could move to the north parts of the country. We aren't retarded.


I grew up and got my education in the northeast, yes you are.
 
2013-10-18 05:38:41 PM  

meat0918: hitlersbrain: We have to wait for the one thing that seems to ever solves our problems... technology. I'm not sure why it is taking so long to integrate fun computer games kids will love to play into education. I imagine there is a lot of push back from the stale educational establishment that will keep insisting that education be tedious and horrible.

They exist, my kids use them

Starfall.com is awesome for learning the alphabet and learning to read.

They have some fun math games as well on other sites.


Thanks for the Starfall tip, have twin boys with severe dyslexia
 
2013-10-18 07:33:06 PM  
If you are poor and you are having trouble surviving on your own, then DO NOT cum inside your girlfriend/wife or don't let anyone cum inside you if you're a woman. Raising a family without money is suicide. You can't blame anyone else if you suffer even more because you're having trouble dividing your already non-existent money among 3 or more people. Only start a family/cum inside someone/let someone cum inside you, after you have already planned out the future and you have a relatively safe financial standing.

Don't destroy your future or make it worse just because you need sex without contraceptives.
 
2013-10-18 08:42:37 PM  
So they are legacies?
 
2013-10-18 08:45:26 PM  

Yellow Beard: Koodz:

I wonder if we cut defense spending to only 25% of the budget and contented ourselves with only having the most expensive military in the world instead of the galaxy how much welfare and tax cuts we could afford...

While I agree we spend way too much on defense, I wonder what we would do with all of the people that would instantly become unemployed under your plan. Last I heard, about 3 million people work in defense related industries.


Unpossible. I have it on good authority that government doesn't create jobs.
 
2013-10-18 10:28:48 PM  
 
2013-10-18 10:46:21 PM  

jjorsett: Thunderpipes: Free housing, free phone, free food, free cash.... Why would anyone want to stop being poor? It is hard work.

I've long thought that we ought to try an experiment in some locale: in return for our supporting you, you have to come sit in a room for 40 hours a week. That's all you need to do, just be present. We'll treat it like a job where you get vacation and sick days and holidays, but you otherwise can't leave without getting docked on your "pay". I'll bet you'd see quite a drop in people applying for benefits.


Yes, great plan. Of course you'd have to allow all the single mothers to bring their kids, supply them with transportation to get to this "room" and on top of that pay for the room. In other words, it would be about as effective as Florida's drug tests for welfare recipients. It would cost the people who have jobs more money.

When did fiscal conservatives become retarded social conservatives who were all about screwing over people who they think are living the easy life on welfare? It's a damn good thing there are still enough intelligent people in most of America who are aware that ideas like this are so silly they'd end up costing us more.

If you aren't a resident of Florida, you should move their right away to be among the like minded.
 
2013-10-18 10:48:20 PM  

OnlyM3: [upl.co image 660x513]


Aren't you one of the ones biatching about all the changes to healthcare?
 
2013-10-19 01:23:08 AM  
Radical new idea: Don't have kids if you can't afford it.

Shocking, I know.
 
2013-10-19 07:52:58 AM  

GameSprocket: The Muthaship: If only it was possible to not have kids you can't provide for.

So, since we have established the difficulty in moving up the social ladder, you are really saying that only those who are from good families should ever be able to reproduce? Maybe we can just sterilize the poor, but then we would only have one generation Wal-Mart employees. Can't have that!


img.fark.net
"I'm not saying do it. I'm saying run it through the computer, see if it would work"
 
Displayed 324 of 324 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report