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)   When you read about "The Poverty Line" in America, keep in mind the line was originally set in 1963 and it assumes all houses have a full-time housewife who is a "skilled cook" and "careful shopper" to stretch their budget   (theatlantic.com) divider line 233
    More: Interesting, abstract concepts  
•       •       •

10020 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2014 at 2:11 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



233 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-09 03:03:53 PM  

ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?


I only have anecdotes, but sadly they involve poor people who do in fact work hard, but make absolutely awful decisions.

Of course, making awful decisions is hardly unique to poor people.
 
2014-01-09 03:04:25 PM  

GBB: Good luck finding a woman that's either a skilled cook or careful shopper these days.  Don't even consider finding one that's both.

/my experience.
//YMMV


I've got one that is a great cook... and shops smart... very budget conscious.

She has no libido though.

So one major arm of the perfect trifecta missing.
 
2014-01-09 03:05:56 PM  

ikanreed: You forgot one more lazy person you're related to, the laziest one of all:
paganpages.org


Snow White?
 
2014-01-09 03:06:55 PM  
Even if you put the poverty line at $.01 annually for a family of fifteen, the conservative mouthbreathers will insist that's way more than they need. Particularly stupid since most of the conservative mouthbreathers are poor themselves. Oh wait, sorry; they're future millionaires so they vote like they want to be in the future.
 
2014-01-09 03:06:58 PM  

CleanAndPure: Target Builder: CleanAndPure: Lots of rich people are rich because of hard work... others have done little.

Lots of poor people are poor despite lots of hard work... others due to laziness.

Interesting that the rich people who have do little work aren't lazy but the poor people are.

If you have no money and don't work to try and get some to feed your family... you're lazy.

If you alreafy have huge amounts of money and don't work hard... big deal... why waste your life working when you could be sipping pina coladas in Rio at Trader Vics?


/Ah-OOOOOOO!
 
2014-01-09 03:10:28 PM  

Carn: Tricky Chicken: zeroman987: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  ***Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem***?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

Telejester, the answer to your question seems to be 'no' couched as a deflection.

***I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all. In fact the few times they actually were employed, one of them quit because he didn't want to wake up so early.  One (that I got a job) was fired because he just wouldn't do the work he was asked. One just goes out to clubs and keeps getting herself pregnant (lovely girl, gave up three babies for adoption before she started keeping them). Then there is the used car salesmen (four of them) that can't seem to keep working for the sema place for very long (but I get good deals on cars).***Now if you add into that the waves of dregs I get to meet through this group, I guess that should count as enough annecdotal evidence.

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.

Lol. I nominate this post as the most hilarious post of the day. No one is this clueless.

But yeah, keep sucking that Koch. I am sure one day something will trickle down.

zero, you appear to have said absolutely nothing.  that is an interesting feat on Fark.  How can describing people I am related to and know quire well possibly be clueless?  Or do you not understand the word clueless?  A post ostensibly asked for annecdotal evidence, and I gave it. Or do you think I am mistaken when an associate appologized to me for having to fire a person I recommended to them. Or perhaps I am mis-remembering the pregnancies my cousin went through?

No, you're just suffering from the Fallacy of Composition.  It's ok, it happens.


Yes, please do read the link you posted. then come back and read what I bolded. Keep doing it until you start to understand what was posted.

You see, fallacy of composition would apply if I implied that all poor are as useless as the ones I listed.  I did not do that. A question was asked "You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?" See that is a direct question asking for information that in the given context could only ever be taken as annecdotal. I responded with the list I bolded above.  Now I know that throwing around classical falacy accusations is popular here, but you really do need to invoke them correctly or you wind up looking like a fool as you do currently.

The quip I added at the end was directed at ikanreed's beatification of the poor in the statement "The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest."
 
2014-01-09 03:11:55 PM  

Chummer45: Magorn: Which actually tells you how bad things have really gotten in America
look at this graph:
[www.doctorhousingbubble.com image 436x351]

now look at this one:
[www.davemanuel.com image 400x300]

See the Problem?   Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.

Those numbers are particularly appalling when you look at charts like this:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 725x537]

and this one, combined witht he ones above, should inspire you to dust off your torches and pitch forks:
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 511x452]

The tide is rising but only some boats are benefiting while others are taking on water so fast they can barely stay afloat

It's because the vast majority of employees have very little bargaining power with their employers.  We have seen a concerted effort to undermine and eliminate unionization, and have failed to enacted other laws that grant rights to employees.

The reason why wages have been falling isn't a mystery - our legal system (including right to work laws, "at will" employment, and very few mandated benefits) results in management having the freedom to pay employees low wages and benefits, and hire and fire them for whatever reason they want.  The typical employee is not in a position to negotiate with management for better job security, better pay, more benefits, etc.

It's just ridiculous for people to desperately try to explain the stagnation of wages as being primarily caused by anything else.


For you, A ceeegar and another chart:

wonkroom.thinkprogress.org
 
2014-01-09 03:12:56 PM  
"No one can buy your useless, overpriced crap if no one has the money to pay for it. I think this last ass raping we received by corporate America is about as far as it can go."


So if you are a working, middle class family in America...

Who is taking money out of your wallet each month.

Corporate America ?

or poor people ?

/it's rhetorical
 
2014-01-09 03:13:41 PM  

theknuckler_33: CleanAndPure: Target Builder: CleanAndPure: Lots of rich people are rich because of hard work... others have done little.

Lots of poor people are poor despite lots of hard work... others due to laziness.

Interesting that the rich people who have do little work aren't lazy but the poor people are.

If you have no money and don't work to try and get some to feed your family... you're lazy.

If you alreafy have huge amounts of money and don't work hard... big deal... why waste your life working when you could be sipping pina coladas in Rio at Trader Vics?

/Ah-OOOOOOO!


Only if your hair is perfect.

/DEP
 
2014-01-09 03:15:26 PM  

flak attack: Magorn: See the Problem?   Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.

Learn to math.  That's not what your numbers show at all.  Unless polygamy has suddenly become popular without me finding out, it would be impossible for the number of people per household to double.  It shows that (omitting households where only the wife works) in 1967, an average of 1.32 people were working per household and in 2002, an average of 1.55 people were working per household.  That is a 17.4% increase in the number of people working per household, compared to a ~20% increase (I'm estimating $41k and $45k as household income numbers here, since your graph doesn't give exact numbers).

Now, I would expect that those numbers have increased by more than the .23 people per household that your numbers show, given that there has been a rise in stay at home husbands (though it is somewhat small).  That doesn't however, come anywhere close to confirming your statement.  If anything, it actually refutes it, showing that household income has risen faster than the average workers per family.
Learn to grammar: "it clearly didn't do it's job."

It also doesn't begin to address the couples where both people work because they chose to.  My parents (I'm not married, so my life doesn't really apply in this situation, which is why I'm using them), for example, both work because they chose to, not because they need to.  Back in 1967, that situation was much less common, since women were more likely to stop working once they got married even if they didn't have kids.


So, in reality, the only thing I want to dust off my torch for is to burn down whatever school you went to because it clearly didn't do it's job.

 
2014-01-09 03:16:11 PM  

Magorn: Chummer45: Magorn: Which actually tells you how bad things have really gotten in America
look at this graph:
[www.doctorhousingbubble.com image 436x351]

now look at this one:
[www.davemanuel.com image 400x300]

See the Problem?   Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.

Those numbers are particularly appalling when you look at charts like this:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 725x537]

and this one, combined witht he ones above, should inspire you to dust off your torches and pitch forks:
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 511x452]

The tide is rising but only some boats are benefiting while others are taking on water so fast they can barely stay afloat

It's because the vast majority of employees have very little bargaining power with their employers.  We have seen a concerted effort to undermine and eliminate unionization, and have failed to enacted other laws that grant rights to employees.

The reason why wages have been falling isn't a mystery - our legal system (including right to work laws, "at will" employment, and very few mandated benefits) results in management having the freedom to pay employees low wages and benefits, and hire and fire them for whatever reason they want.  The typical employee is not in a position to negotiate with management for better job security, better pay, more benefits, etc.

It's just ridiculous for people to desperately try to explain the stagnation of wages as being primarily caused by anything else.

For you, A ceeegar and another chart:

[wonkroom.thinkprogress.org image 402x253]



It's especially laugh-worthy that the scale on the left is five (5) percentage point per line, while the scale on the right is two (2) percentage points per line.

But it was gratuitous for the chart-maker to line up a 30% union membership rate with a 54% rate of middle class income representation.

Would you like to see my chart comparing global warming and pirates?
 
2014-01-09 03:16:23 PM  

umad: ikanreed:
You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?
I have. And they were stupid and lazy motherfarkers to a person.


Not too lazy to finally put you on ignore, douchebag.

Except now I've figured out why you finally hate me so much--I don't fit in with your narrow worldview.
 
2014-01-09 03:16:29 PM  

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

Telejester, the answer to your question seems to be 'no' couched as a deflection.

I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all. In fact the few times they actually were employed, one of them quit because he didn't want to wake up so early.  One (that I got a job) was fired because he just wouldn't do the work he was asked. One just goes out to clubs and keeps getting herself pregnant (lovely girl, gave up three babies for adoption before she started keeping them). Then there is the used car salesmen (four of them) that can't seem to keep working for the sema place for very long (but I get good deals on cars).  Now if you add into that the waves of dregs I get to meet through this group, I guess that should count as enough annecdotal evidence.

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.


This and other posts make me want to ask whether folks would like to go the Victorian route and distinguish between the "deserving" poor and the "undeserving" poor. The "undeserving" would be given assistance and the "deserving" poor would be put in the workhouse, etc. Then maybe we could add in your Victorian capitalist to the picture, the guy with the top hat carrying a diamond-topped walking stick to twirl around, and who has 99.9% of the wealth in the town. This is what you guys seem to be asking for.
 
2014-01-09 03:16:56 PM  
In real terms, not numbers. What is the definition of "living in poverty" in the US? I'm guessing those living in "poverty" today have quite a more comfortable life than even the "middle" class in the 60's.

Then again there is that whole choice and consequence thing that "freedom" loving people seem to forget about. Everyone wants freedom of choice but they don't want to have to deal with the consequences of their actions if they are bad.
 
2014-01-09 03:17:10 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Yes, please do read the link you posted. then come back and read what I bolded. Keep doing it until you start to understand what was posted.

You see, fallacy of composition would apply if I implied that all poor are as useless as the ones I listed.  I did not do that. A question was asked "You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?" See that is a direct question asking for information that in the given context could only ever be taken as annecdotal. I responded with the list I bolded above.  Now I know that throwing around classical falacy accusations is popular here, but you really do need to invoke them correctly or you wind up looking like a fool as you do currently.

The quip I added at the end was directed at ikanreed's beatification of the poor in the statement "The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest."


So you agree with ikanreed's statement, but just wanted to add some exceptional cases for our consideration?  Or were you trying to use a few cases of lazy poor people that you know personally to make a statement about all poor people?  That sure seemed like what you were doing.  Would you care to clarify your position?  Are you only objecting to his use of the word "most"?  If so, what would you replace it with?  Some/many/few/none?
 
2014-01-09 03:17:17 PM  

Magorn: Which actually tells you how bad things have really gotten in America
look at this graph:
[www.doctorhousingbubble.com image 436x351]

now look at this one:
[www.davemanuel.com image 400x300]

See the Problem?   Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.

Those numbers are particularly appalling when you look at charts like this:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 725x537]

and this one, combined witht he ones above, should inspire you to dust off your torches and pitch forks:
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 511x452]

The tide is rising but only some boats are benefiting while others are taking on water so fast they can barely stay afloat


Can I just suggest another interpretation?

1) Ever since women started working, men haven't gotten a pay raise.  Women have been going gangbusters, but it's been at the "cost" of men's incomes going flat.  (Which is partly due to some long-term structural issues killing off manufacturing jobs).
2) So where it used to be "Dad makes everything, Mom makes nothing", it's now "Dad makes some, and Mom makes some."  This combines with anti-growth policies driving rents through the roof to the point where you need both those incomes.
3) The HOUSEHOLD issue is really simple.  If Mom got divorced, Mom was destitute.  But now Mom's making some cash (and she's always hated Dad, which is why she's a complete drunk and they fight over the dinner table every night), so she divorces Dad, and ends up as poor.  Poor, not destitute.  Oh, and meanwhile, the kid goes to college to be an engineer, and walks out making $40-100K, so he's on his own in an apartment.  The average "personal" income is way up ($22,000 to $38,000 since 1980, NOT counting inflation).  The average "household" income is stable because there's less incomes per household.
4) And meanwhile, while some of the inequality is driven by well, inequality built into capitalism as a feature, some of it is just getting driven by the spread of the one-parent household.

Dad + Mom = $100K.
Dad - alimony = $14K
Mom + alimony = $85K

See how unequal that is?  (Actual numbers growing up).

You are better off personally than you were 30 years ago (on the average and the median.  Not necessarily you).

Now, there's some really long-term issues driving out unskilled rote labor and replacing or augmenting it with cheaper automation and machines which leads to increased urbanization (which then combines with anti-growth policies to fark over EVERYBODY).  And a lot of those people are settling for welfare (because of, among other things, the welfare cliff, which penalizes people for almost making it), partly because they're brutally underqualified for the modern world, partly because rural regions have been dying off for the last century, and partly because it's there as an option.  And yet, we've gone from $22K to $38K.

/Also, if you want to solve inequality, solve the productivity gap first.
//And then if you treat inequality as a problem in and of itself, instead of a possible symptom of other issues (and at a certain level, a good thing.  Google redefined the world, everyone involved at every level *should* be multi-billionaires.  Netflix created a post-scarcity economy in media, ditto, Apple, ditto, MSFT, ditto.), go look up:
* the difference between "value", "price", and "cost".
* what "network effects" do to value
* what "economies of scale" do to cost
* How the computing industries really benefit from this because the cost of the Nth copy is functionally 0 when compared to the cost of the 1st copy
* How that encourages one or two big winners amongst a giant pile of losers, since the winners are able to provide more for less by spreading around the costs, which in turn makes computing into the most unequal industry currently in existence (I'm willing to bet).
* why no one actually in the industry gives a shiat about the above bullet point, and how this provides one possible way to (for lack of a better term) ignore crippling inequality as a social problem.
///Seriously, ask around your family for the stories. Yes, I had a rat-infested apartment, but I didn't have a rat-infested, unheated garage that I was illegally subletting.
 
2014-01-09 03:17:32 PM  

Magorn: Chummer45: Magorn: Which actually tells you how bad things have really gotten in America
look at this graph:
[www.doctorhousingbubble.com image 436x351]

now look at this one:
[www.davemanuel.com image 400x300]

See the Problem?   Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.

Those numbers are particularly appalling when you look at charts like this:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 725x537]

and this one, combined witht he ones above, should inspire you to dust off your torches and pitch forks:
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 511x452]

The tide is rising but only some boats are benefiting while others are taking on water so fast they can barely stay afloat

It's because the vast majority of employees have very little bargaining power with their employers.  We have seen a concerted effort to undermine and eliminate unionization, and have failed to enacted other laws that grant rights to employees.

The reason why wages have been falling isn't a mystery - our legal system (including right to work laws, "at will" employment, and very few mandated benefits) results in management having the freedom to pay employees low wages and benefits, and hire and fire them for whatever reason they want.  The typical employee is not in a position to negotiate with management for better job security, better pay, more benefits, etc.

It's just ridiculous for people to desperately try to explain the stagnation of wages as being primarily caused by anything else.

For you, A ceeegar and another chart:

[wonkroom.thinkprogress.org image 402x253]


People who have embraced this "race to the bottom" are under the impression that if people work for nothing, everything will be free.
 
2014-01-09 03:17:34 PM  

here to help: We have the occasional "grocery bill" thread here on the Fark dot coms and I always shudder at some of the totals that get posted. $200 a WEEK for a couple/small family or even a single person seems to be acceptable. Admittedly I am thrifty, single, know how to cook, don't really buy junk food and don't cram my piehole at the slightest little tummy grumble but I eat rather well on $70-80 per MONTH and could bring that WAY down if I was willing to spend more time doing prep/cooking.
...


WTF are you eating?  Soylent Green and chicken feet?  I get fresh veg, canned foods in bulk, meat in bulk, and cook most everything from scratch and I can't do much better than $80 a WEEK.

FFS, just getting dried rice ($1.29) and beans ($1.30) for 7 days a week is $20 ($18.20).  And that's assuming you only consume one bag per day.  I'm shopping for 3 full grown adults so I assume we'd eat more.
 
2014-01-09 03:17:58 PM  

ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


It sounds like you subscribe to the labor theory of value.
 
2014-01-09 03:18:02 PM  
poverty is a result, not a cause

poor decisions, inadequate self-control, lack of ambition, no shame

a man may be born poor, and that's the fault of his parents, but a man who's born poor, and still poor by the age of 30 has nobody to blame but himself

poverty will never be eradicated, because poverty is relative -- the bottom tenth of any population is doing worse than the upper 90%, and they will be called the "poor".

they will be "poor" even if they have resources otherwise to buy cars, or 42" colour televisions, or bean bag chairs, or mobile phones, or george foreman grills, or tennis shoes with flashing lights on them.
 
2014-01-09 03:18:19 PM  

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester:

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.

You forgot one more lazy person you're related to, the laziest one of all:
[paganpages.org image 280x456]

Do you have some evidence of this charge? Aside from the time I spend on Fark? Or is this just more baseless tripe you like to spew? Like your classics " the hardest working people are among the poorest." and "Just knowing that there were global cooling articles in the 70's automatically makes you a denier" (circa thread 8079447).

You do seem to have a dizzying lack of depth and ability to support your assertions.


Oh, look, you bringing up a point where you were wrong in the past makes you less wrong now.
 
2014-01-09 03:18:42 PM  

liam76: mdeesnuts: mike_d85: ikanreed:
You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

I have and lots of them work hard.  Most of them are idiots.  I say that honestly.  They are stupid, stupid people and you can tell them exactly the obvious answer and they will ignore you and do it wrong and worsen their situation or keep it somewhere in the neighborhood of "completely farked".


This. Go be a regular at a dive bar for a month. Just sit there for an hour or two after work. You'll get to know the (many) other regulars and learn their stories. Most of them will be middling poor and you'll come to understand they'd be much better off if they weren't so stubbornly dumb.

You know there are a lto fo poor peopel who don't hang otu at bars, right?

And if you are getting your info rom that, it could be coloring your view.


That's true. It's just where I noticed the correlation of stubbornly dumb to poor. And I say stubborn because most of the people I base this off of weren't actually dumb, just made self-defeating decisions and would defend them no matter what.

/have family like that, too, just not such a large pool
//I like dive bars so I have a pretty good sample size
 
2014-01-09 03:19:10 PM  

MilesTeg: In real terms, not numbers. What is the definition of "living in poverty" in the US? I'm guessing those living in "poverty" today have quite a more comfortable life than even the "middle" class in the 60's.

Then again there is that whole choice and consequence thing that "freedom" loving people seem to forget about. Everyone wants freedom of choice but they don't want to have to deal with the consequences of their actions if they are bad.


Most of them do have refrigerators.
 
2014-01-09 03:19:41 PM  

Phinn: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

Work is not valuable merely because it's hard.

Work is valuable to the extent that (a) other people desire it, and (b) the difficulty in their obtaining it through some alternative.

This is not true just because I say so.  This is an inescapable feature of objective, universal, economic reality.


What you are talking about sounds like supply and demand.  Janitorial work is arduous, but can be performed by nearly everybody with almost no training.  Therefore the available workforce for any particular position is massive and therefore inexpensive.  An extremely necessary position, but not very financially valuable.

Whereas what I do is not particularly strenuous, but the knowledge and skill set to do it is quite unique and required extreme effort to attain.  there are very few that can do what I actually do, so I can comand a higher salary.

but If you look at the work itself.  It is far more important for us to have janitorial services than the stuff I do. If I weren't here, the stuff would just get done much much more slowly.  If the custodians weren't here, nobody would be able to work at all after a few days.
 
2014-01-09 03:20:31 PM  

here to help: We have the occasional "grocery bill" thread here on the Fark dot coms and I always shudder at some of the totals that get posted. $200 a WEEK for a couple/small family or even a single person seems to be acceptable. Admittedly I am thrifty, single, know how to cook, don't really buy junk food and don't cram my piehole at the slightest little tummy grumble but I eat rather well on $70-80 per MONTH and could bring that WAY down if I was willing to spend more time doing prep/cooking.

That said the cost of food, especially staples, has soared as has all essential costs like housing, transportation, etc while the wages have not only stagnated but have been going DOWN when factoring in inflation, benefits, full time status (working two decently paid part time jobs is FAR more expensive than one meagerly compensated full time job) and the like.

We have trained the past couple of generations to be the ultimate bean counters who specialize in nickel and dime tactics to squeeze every last micro cent and millisecond out of every scenario they can while the salesmen lull everyone into believing they are subhuman for not making fiscally irresponsible purchases even if it means going into to debt at ridiculously high interest rates.

Then, those seemingly intelligent and cautious few who scrimp and save and claw their way into saving and investing or slave their way through jobs with supposed retirement benefits have their entire efforts wiped out every decade or so funneling it into the pockets of the very same people who would shame them if they did anything less than complete and utter meekness and subservience. Of course once the grift is complete those same entities that cried poverty and "too big to fail" have gotten their bailouts and reduced the quality of life for everyone everywhere start reporting "RECORD PROFITS" a few short years later while their victims are too old and tired to hold them accountable for their crimes.

My solution? Completely overhaul how busines ...


I'm curious as how you can feed yourself for $2.50 a day, let alone eat 'rather well' on that budget.
 
2014-01-09 03:20:50 PM  

Enigmamf: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

It sounds like you subscribe to the labor theory of value.


Oh, no, I don't care about value(at least in the context of the working poor), I care about human suffering, just world hypothesis bullshiat, and minimizing it.   When the sanctity of your economic system's assumptions come before the people who make it up, you're doing something wrong.
 
2014-01-09 03:20:53 PM  

mike_d85: I have and lots of them work hard. Most of them are idiots. I say that honestly. They are stupid, stupid people and you can tell them exactly the obvious answer and they will ignore you and do it wrong and worsen their situation or keep it somewhere in the neighborhood of "completely farked".

I say "most" because there are people who got caught in medical bills, layoffs, metal illness, etc. and ended up poor (usually temporarily) and they are not idiots. However the people who were born poor, stayed poor, and do not show any signs of ever getting out of poverty, are generally morons.


I definitely agree.  I have seen far too many who just dig themselves in deeper if given the slightest chance to.  If they have a dollar they spend it, they don't think about the future.

And you missed one category of poor but not idiots--immigrants with limited English.

Magorn: See the Problem? Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.


Except for the little detail that there are now far more households than there were then.


It doesn't take much in the way of skilled cooking in order to live on cheap food.  A skilled cook will certainly make it taste better but isn't mandatory.  Smart shopping is far more important but it's not that hard a skill, everyone should develop it.  The other thing I would add is to make meals around what's a good deal rather than plan meals and then buy what you need to make them.
 
2014-01-09 03:23:17 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Phinn: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

Work is not valuable merely because it's hard.

Work is valuable to the extent that (a) other people desire it, and (b) the difficulty in their obtaining it through some alternative.

This is not true just because I say so.  This is an inescapable feature of objective, universal, economic reality.

What you are talking about sounds like supply and demand.  Janitorial work is arduous, but can be performed by nearly everybody with almost no training.  Therefore the available workforce for any particular position is massive and therefore inexpensive.  An extremely necessary position, but not very financially valuable.

Whereas what I do is not particularly strenuous, but the knowledge and skill set to do it is quite unique and required extreme effort to attain.  there are very few that can do what I actually do, so I can comand a higher salary.

but If you look at the work itself.  It is far more important for us to have janitorial services than the stuff I do. If I weren't here, the stuff would just get done much much more slowly.  If the custodians weren't here, nobody would be able to work at all after a few days.


Here's the bullshiat.  That's it.  What you do, like what I did, required a lot of free time for education from your parents in your youth.  A lot of money and free time for education in your young adulthood, and a foot in the door with respect to "respectability".  It's not "difficult" but it is rare(er).
 
2014-01-09 03:24:46 PM  

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester:

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.

You forgot one more lazy person you're related to, the laziest one of all:
[paganpages.org image 280x456]

Do you have some evidence of this charge? Aside from the time I spend on Fark? Or is this just more baseless tripe you like to spew? Like your classics " the hardest working people are among the poorest." and "Just knowing that there were global cooling articles in the 70's automatically makes you a denier" (circa thread 8079447).

You do seem to have a dizzying lack of depth and ability to support your assertions.

Oh, look, you bringing up a point where you were wrong in the past makes you less wrong now.


Are you starting with the argument that there were NO articles touting global cooling in the 70s?! Or do you assert that I was wrong to confirm that yes such articles existed?
 
2014-01-09 03:25:14 PM  

ikanreed: Enigmamf: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

It sounds like you subscribe to the labor theory of value.

Oh, no, I don't care about value(at least in the context of the working poor), I care about human suffering, just world hypothesis bullshiat, and minimizing it.   When the sanctity of your economic system's assumptions come before the people who make it up, you're doing something wrong.



Then YOU alleviate their suffering, big guy.  You've got your caring meter cranked up to 11, so that clearly makes you better than everyone else.  And since caring is all that matters, go ahead, run with it, dude.  Give the poor what they need.

Oh, wait, do you actually need other people's cooperation in solving complex social problems?  Well, then, you might want to actually communicating with the general public in terms of something we like to call "economic reality."
 
2014-01-09 03:25:48 PM  

menschenfresser: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

Telejester, the answer to your question seems to be 'no' couched as a deflection.

I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all. In fact the few times they actually were employed, one of them quit because he didn't want to wake up so early.  One (that I got a job) was fired because he just wouldn't do the work he was asked. One just goes out to clubs and keeps getting herself pregnant (lovely girl, gave up three babies for adoption before she started keeping them). Then there is the used car salesmen (four of them) that can't seem to keep working for the sema place for very long (but I get good deals on cars).  Now if you add into that the waves of dregs I get to meet through this group, I guess that should count as enough annecdotal evidence.

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.

This and other posts make me want to ask whether folks would like to go the Victorian route and distinguish between the "deserving" poor and the "undeserving" poor. The "undeserving" would be given assistance and the "deserving" poor would be put in the workhouse, etc. Then maybe we could add in your Victorian capitalist to the picture, the guy with the top hat carrying a diamond-topped walking stick to twirl around, and who has 99.9% of the wealth in the town. This is what you guys seem to be asking for.


Ugh, I wrote this backwards: I should have said that the "deserving" poor got the aid while the "undeserving" ones were sent to the workhouse. Apologies all round for my error.
 
2014-01-09 03:26:21 PM  
ZOMG, they assumed you were an educated consumer!

But Responsibility !!!
 
2014-01-09 03:26:25 PM  

1derful: TIL every woman in America was a skillful cook in the 60's.

Thanks, feminism.



Someone has never tasted my grandmother's cooking...

/miss you, Granny
 
2014-01-09 03:27:31 PM  
So, the general consensus is people are poor because they're ignorant/stupid.

Well, obviously a good education is the cure.

oh, wait. We have an entire political party dedicated to privatizing education and eliminating critical thinking from the curriculum.

Well, we can fix that by sending them to college right?

oh, wait, crushing debt and a lack of jobs that pay enough for people to pay back the debt.
 
2014-01-09 03:27:58 PM  

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester:

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.

You forgot one more lazy person you're related to, the laziest one of all:
[paganpages.org image 280x456]

Do you have some evidence of this charge? Aside from the time I spend on Fark? Or is this just more baseless tripe you like to spew? Like your classics " the hardest working people are among the poorest." and "Just knowing that there were global cooling articles in the 70's automatically makes you a denier" (circa thread 8079447).

You do seem to have a dizzying lack of depth and ability to support your assertions.

Oh, look, you bringing up a point where you were wrong in the past makes you less wrong now.

Are you starting with the argument that there were NO articles touting global cooling in the 70s?! Or do you assert that I was wrong to confirm that yes such articles existed?


Christ, I'm not putting up with this pedantic bullshiat again.  Yes, you are a climate change denier, and you're making the world a worse place.  Yes, you're wrong today, too, and you should go away.
 
2014-01-09 03:28:16 PM  

zeroman987: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

Telejester, the answer to your question seems to be 'no' couched as a deflection.

I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all. In fact the few times they actually were employed, one of them quit because he didn't want to wake up so early.  One (that I got a job) was fired because he just wouldn't do the work he was asked. One just goes out to clubs and keeps getting herself pregnant (lovely girl, gave up three babies for adoption before she started keeping them). Then there is the used car salesmen (four of them) that can't seem to keep working for the sema place for very long (but I get good deals on cars).  Now if you add into that the waves of dregs I get to meet through this group, I guess that should count as enough annecdotal evidence.

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.

Lol. I nominate this post as the most hilarious post of the day. No one is this clueless.

But yeah, keep sucking that Koch. I am sure one day something will trickle down.


This
 
2014-01-09 03:29:25 PM  

Phinn: ikanreed: Enigmamf: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

It sounds like you subscribe to the labor theory of value.

Oh, no, I don't care about value(at least in the context of the working poor), I care about human suffering, just world hypothesis bullshiat, and minimizing it.   When the sanctity of your economic system's assumptions come before the people who make it up, you're doing something wrong.

Then YOU alleviate their suffering, big guy.  You've got your caring meter cranked up to 11, so that clearly makes you better than everyone else.  And since caring is all that matters, go ahead, run with it, dude.  Give the poor what they need.

Oh, wait, do you actually need other people's cooperation in solving complex social problems?  Well, then, you might want to actually communicating with the general public in terms of something we like to call "economic reality."


Or how about we don't have an economic system built on screwing people, for the benefit of a very select few on the the justification that it's somehow "fair"?  There's a bullshiat "I care about fairness" ethical lie in your system too, only you're in favor of human suffering to get it.
 
2014-01-09 03:29:55 PM  

CleanAndPure: GBB: Good luck finding a woman that's either a skilled cook or careful shopper these days.  Don't even consider finding one that's both.

/my experience.
//YMMV

I've got one that is a great cook... and shops smart... very budget conscious.

She has no libido though.

So one major arm of the perfect trifecta missing.


I have good cook and decent libido, but she thinks that just because it says "organic" on the label it must be better.  1.7/3
 
2014-01-09 03:30:59 PM  

meyerkev: increased urbanization (which then combines with anti-growth policies to fark over EVERYBODY).


Where are you getting this "everything's anti-growth" victim complex?  Portland, fine, but that's the extreme outlier.  A lot more of the nation is like greater Houston... ever-the-more enthralled, begging, and will give you tax breaks (if not straight-up give you money) to put up all the duplexes, Walmarts, and fried-chicken-and-oil-change huts you want.

The problem is with urban renewal and gentrification, the wealthy are moving back into cities.  The poor are ending up in the peripheries.  Trailer parks in Victorville and Tracy.  Which are far worse places for the poor, since they're so tied to driving 300 miles a week, which kills the poor at $4 gas.
 
2014-01-09 03:32:24 PM  

ikanreed: You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?


That may not be the right counter-argument there, since, like the other five or so people that replied, my Weeners is "yes, and most of them are poor mostly due to being lazy".  Not  necessarily, but statistically.  Those of us that are poor but working on it are the first to tell you that most of the people in our income bracket... aren't, so much.

I'd say the hardest-working people are mostly in the lower-middle class, where your income is actually mostly a matter of applied effort.  Second hardest-working would be upper-middle-class where it's not so much a matter of effort as skill, but it takes effort to acquire the skilled labor (i.e. it's a lot of work but some of it's in advance), then the working poor where they're basically putting in enough work to get by but can't find quite enough to get into the middle class, then the outright unemployed (which is mostly a matter of luck but with some return on effort in applying for jobs), and last and least the extremely rich where income is  entirely a matter of luck and no real effort is involved.

// Not that I begrudge the wealthy, particularly.  Historically, being a lucky son of a biatch is a completely legit way to move your society forward, whether money is involved or not.  Most inventors could swear by this.
 
2014-01-09 03:32:40 PM  

Lawnchair: meyerkev: increased urbanization (which then combines with anti-growth policies to fark over EVERYBODY).

Where are you getting this "everything's anti-growth" victim complex?  Portland, fine, but that's the extreme outlier.  A lot more of the nation is like greater Houston... ever-the-more enthralled, begging, and will give you tax breaks (if not straight-up give you money) to put up all the duplexes, Walmarts, and fried-chicken-and-oil-change huts you want.

The problem is with urban renewal and gentrification, the wealthy are moving back into cities.  The poor are ending up in the peripheries.  Trailer parks in Victorville and Tracy.  Which are far worse places for the poor, since they're so tied to driving 300 miles a week, which kills the poor at $4 gas.


Except cities don't really have the "low-income" jobs anymore either.  There aren't factories downtown where you can just jump in and start making lower-middle class wages.
 
2014-01-09 03:32:58 PM  
The right wing really does want poor Americans to be POOR-poor. Like, starving skinny orphans poor.

www.thelondoneveningpost.com

And then instead of food, all the right wing will offer are bibles and a hob-nailed boot to the face.
 
2014-01-09 03:33:03 PM  

ikanreed: Or how about we don't have an economic system built on screwing people, for the benefit of a very select few on the the justification that it's somehow "fair"?


So which system is that?
 
2014-01-09 03:34:47 PM  

Jim_Callahan: ikanreed: You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

That may not be the right counter-argument there, since, like the other five or so people that replied, my Weeners is "yes, and most of them are poor mostly due to being lazy".  Not  necessarily, but statistically.  Those of us that are poor but working on it are the first to tell you that most of the people in our income bracket... aren't, so much.

I'd say the hardest-working people are mostly in the lower-middle class, where your income is actually mostly a matter of applied effort.  Second hardest-working would be upper-middle-class where it's not so much a matter of effort as skill, but it takes effort to acquire the skilled labor (i.e. it's a lot of work but some of it's in advance), then the working poor where they're basically putting in enough work to get by but can't find quite enough to get into the middle class, then the outright unemployed (which is mostly a matter of luck but with some return on effort in applying for jobs), and last and least the extremely rich where income is  entirely a matter of luck and no real effort is involved.

// Not that I begrudge the wealthy, particularly.  Historically, being a lucky son of a biatch is a completely legit way to move your society forward, whether money is involved or not.  Most inventors could swear by this.


Okay, the distinction, I suppose, is that nowadays, what used to be lower-middle class, as you describe it, is really just lower class pay today.  Wage stagnation and inflation have been pretty awful in that regard.
 
2014-01-09 03:35:00 PM  

Carn: Tricky Chicken: Yes, please do read the link you posted. then come back and read what I bolded. Keep doing it until you start to understand what was posted.

You see, fallacy of composition would apply if I implied that all poor are as useless as the ones I listed.  I did not do that. A question was asked "You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?" See that is a direct question asking for information that in the given context could only ever be taken as annecdotal. I responded with the list I bolded above.  Now I know that throwing around classical falacy accusations is popular here, but you really do need to invoke them correctly or you wind up looking like a fool as you do currently.

The quip I added at the end was directed at ikanreed's beatification of the poor in the statement "The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest."

So you agree with ikanreed's statement, but just wanted to add some exceptional cases for our consideration?  Or were you trying to use a few cases of lazy poor people that you know personally to make a statement about all poor people?  That sure seemed like what you were doing.  Would you care to clarify your position?  Are you only objecting to his use of the word "most"?  If so, what would you replace it with?  Some/many/few/none?


Well, the ONLY truely poor people I know are the relatives I have and they are universally lazy scheeming dirtbags. I can make no generalization of the poor population in general.  I sincerely hope that my relatives are outliers.

My personal position regarding the poor and unemployed would probably be a most callous capitalistic one.  I see them as a resource that needs to be exploited. And much like all other resources, they are of little value in their raw state. Much like you have to devellop resources like trees to wood and ores to metals, you should likewise develop the poor into something more useful than what they are currently.


Which use of the word most are you referring to? the statement "The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest " is what I had a problem with. that statement lumps all the hardest workers into the poorest group.  That is patently wrong.
 
2014-01-09 03:35:07 PM  

ikanreed: Phinn: ikanreed: Enigmamf: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

It sounds like you subscribe to the labor theory of value.

Oh, no, I don't care about value(at least in the context of the working poor), I care about human suffering, just world hypothesis bullshiat, and minimizing it.   When the sanctity of your economic system's assumptions come before the people who make it up, you're doing something wrong.

Then YOU alleviate their suffering, big guy.  You've got your caring meter cranked up to 11, so that clearly makes you better than everyone else.  And since caring is all that matters, go ahead, run with it, dude.  Give the poor what they need.

Oh, wait, do you actually need other people's cooperation in solving complex social problems?  Well, then, you might want to actually communicating with the general public in terms of something we like to call "economic reality."

Or how about we don't have an economic system built on screwing people, for the benefit of a very select few on the the justification that it's somehow "fair"?  There's a bullshiat "I care about fairness" ethical lie in your system too, only you're in favor of human suffering to get it.



You're right -- the Federal Reserve should be abolished immediately.
 
2014-01-09 03:35:14 PM  

Tricky Chicken: zeroman987: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

Telejester, the answer to your question seems to be 'no' couched as a deflection.

I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all. In fact the few times they actually were employed, one of them quit because he didn't want to wake up so early.  One (that I got a job) was fired because he just wouldn't do the work he was asked. One just goes out to clubs and keeps getting herself pregnant (lovely girl, gave up three babies for adoption before she started keeping them). Then there is the used car salesmen (four of them) that can't seem to keep working for the sema place for very long (but I get good deals on cars).  Now if you add into that the waves of dregs I get to meet through this group, I guess that should count as enough annecdotal evidence.

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.

Lol. I nominate this post as the most hilarious post of the day. No one is this clueless.

But yeah, keep sucking that Koch. I am sure one day something will trickle down.

zero, you appear to have said absolutely nothing.  that is an interesting feat on Fark.  How can describing people I am related to and know quire well possibly be clueless?  Or do you not understand the word clueless?  A post ostensibly asked for annecdotal evidence, and I gave it. Or do you think I am mistaken when an associate appologized to me for having to fire a person I recommended to them. Or perhaps I am mis-remembering the pregnancies my cousin went through?


You should have been born in a family with more bootstraps. Then you wouldn't have to be related to those hideous POORS!

Although, your posts, rife with misspelled words, do lend credence to your claim that your cousin loves getting pregnant. Either way, your nonsense gives me a headache.

Its almost as if when people are born into poverty, they fail to learn the behaviors that allow them to escape. It creates a circle... maybe a cycle? A cycle of poverty? And when they are confronted with a different way of doing things, they reject it because they have not developed the ability to formulate long term goals; it is almost as if they have seen the people that work hard, have goals, and save money be punished with more poverty and disappointment, and they figure, shiat it cannot get any worse.

Make sure to open up your throat.
 
2014-01-09 03:35:41 PM  

asquian: So, the general consensus is people are poor because they're ignorant/stupid.

Well, obviously a good education is the cure.


I think budgeting and how to balance a checkbook should be mandatory classes in primary and secondary schools (yes, do it at least twice).

But by and large the issue I see is life skills. For instance, you don't tell your boss to EABOD because you had a minor disagreement. But you tell Joe Blow that telling his boss to EABOD was a bad idea and he'll defend it.

Education has no help for those raised stubbornly dumb.
 
2014-01-09 03:36:28 PM  

letrole: poverty is a result, not a cause

poor decisions, inadequate self-control, lack of ambition, no shame

a man may be born poor, and that's the fault of his parents, but a man who's born poor, and still poor by the age of 30 has nobody to blame but himself


A man born poor will have to grow up in a house where he wont get the same kind of interactions as his more successful counterparts. He won't get the same level of schooling. He won't receive many of the other similar opportunities and benefits as a person who is born into a better situation. s it still possible to overcome this deck stacked against him? Sure, but that's going to be the exception not the rule.
 
2014-01-09 03:38:46 PM  

mdeesnuts: asquian: So, the general consensus is people are poor because they're ignorant/stupid.

Well, obviously a good education is the cure.

I think budgeting and how to balance a checkbook should be mandatory classes in primary and secondary schools (yes, do it at least twice).

But by and large the issue I see is life skills. For instance, you don't tell your boss to EABOD because you had a minor disagreement. But you tell Joe Blow that telling his boss to EABOD was a bad idea and he'll defend it.

Education has no help for those raised stubbornly dumb.


True, but trickle down economics and the crippling of our educational system have gone hand in hand towards putting us where we are.
 
Displayed 50 of 233 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report