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.

(Washington Post)   Rich people are not the reason poor people are poor, so let's stop victimizing the rich through draconian taxes and inflammatory rhetoric and work on real solutions for income inequality, like giving the top 1 percent a tax cut   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 133
    More: Obvious, income inequality, poor people, tax cuts, wealths, disposable income, rhetoric, labor force  
•       •       •

1575 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Feb 2014 at 2:42 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-03 04:59:45 PM  

Saiga410: meat0918: The food stamp cuts will make the poor that have them grumble.

But welfare does not interfere with people bringing forth their full economic pressure to recieve just compensation.


I think the only thing that does that is fear.

Maybe that's what we are waiting for; the will that gets the people to overcome that fear and be able to demand that just compensation.
 
2014-02-03 05:08:26 PM  

FarkedOver: Mr. Eugenides: FarkedOver: The rich need people to be poor.  They need the unemployed.  The fact that they need these things is exactly why they do everything in their power to make sure it is that way.

Care to explain why the rich need people to be poor and unemployed?

It drives down wages.  When more people are competing for jobs.


How does that in any way benefit the "rich"?

An unstated premise you are assuming is that economics is zero sum; that for me to have more, someone else must have less.  That's simply not true, wealth expands and contracts (though it mostly expands).

What helps the wealthy the most is for the economy (and total wealth) to expand. High unemployment and low wages is a sign of a contracting economy which is bad for the wealthy.
 
2014-02-03 05:09:38 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: High unemployment and low wages is a sign of a contracting economy which is bad for the wealthy.


Except that it's happening during an expansion.  And as an underlying trend through several bigger expansions.
 
2014-02-03 05:09:41 PM  

meat0918: Saiga410: meat0918: The food stamp cuts will make the poor that have them grumble.

But welfare does not interfere with people bringing forth their full economic pressure to recieve just compensation.

I think the only thing that does that is fear.

Maybe that's what we are waiting for; the will that gets the people to overcome that fear and be able to demand that just compensation.


It is going to happen one of 3 ways.  Violence, govt edict or we as indidual actors in the economy stand up for ourselves.  I want number 3 but as many have stated (pentulant whine of a 5 year old) "but that is hard" so my money is on two.
 
2014-02-03 05:22:14 PM  
thinkprogress.org
 
2014-02-03 05:24:05 PM  
Everyone is oversimplifying the issue. Lowering taxes on the wealthy isn't going to add one more job to the world, or give one more person a raise. But you also can't create jobs by raising taxes either. And given the fact that the government is mostly made up of bought and paid for whores, the government can't and won't save you.

It seems to me that the only way for the middle class to regain any ground is to be able to advocate for its own best interest. The problem is that unionization is largely useless because you aren't competing with non-unionized labor, but with foreign, near slave labor and technology. It seems counterintuitive to me that adding extremely low paying jobs to the economy is good for anyone, yet China has a fast growing middle class due to its manufacturing base, and you can't argue with that. So it would appear that having low skill, low paying manufacturing jobs (like we did during periods of explosive growth) is the best way to go forward.

If I could do anything, I would impose stiff tariffs on imported products. We need factory jobs here. They are going to suck and you're they're not going to pay well. Tough shiat. Pick up a book if you don't like it.
 
2014-02-03 05:37:30 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: FarkedOver: Mr. Eugenides: FarkedOver: The rich need people to be poor.  They need the unemployed.  The fact that they need these things is exactly why they do everything in their power to make sure it is that way.

Care to explain why the rich need people to be poor and unemployed?

It drives down wages.  When more people are competing for jobs.

How does that in any way benefit the "rich"?

An unstated premise you are assuming is that economics is zero sum; that for me to have more, someone else must have less.  That's simply not true, wealth expands and contracts (though it mostly expands).

What helps the wealthy the most is for the economy (and total wealth) to expand. High unemployment and low wages is a sign of a contracting economy which is bad for the wealthy.


In the long run, sure, but that's not the view they're taking. It's not surprising, given that corporate America is set up to overwhelmingly reward short term success even at the expense of long term strategy.

In the short term, quarterly profits are everything, which in turn means the bottom line is of special importance, and labor is a major line-item expenditure that is exceedingly easy to reduce. Reductions in labor is the first thing most companies will look at if they decide it's necessary to cut expenses.

Since labor is such a major component of the bottom line, and the bottom line is such a major component of the short-term reward mindset, it makes a lot of sense that people whose wealth is directly tied to corporate management and the stock market would want to keep labor costs as low as possible. You can only cut your workforce so far, and after that the easiest way to reduce labor costs is to depress wages; the easiest way to put downwards pressure on wages is to have more supply than demand, i.e. have more job seekers than available jobs.

The rich don't need lots of people unemployed, and would certainly be better off in the long run with more people employed, but from a business standpoint, high supply and low demand for labor is a very desirable situation over the short term.
 
2014-02-03 05:37:35 PM  
Magnanimous_J
The problem is that unionization is largely useless because you aren't competing with non-unionized labor, but with foreign, near slave labor and technology.

They could have been organizing with them instead of against them, and investing in worker ownership.
 
2014-02-03 05:41:27 PM  

Saiga410: Maybe that's what we are waiting for; the will that gets the people to overcome that fear and be able to demand that just compensation.

It is going to happen one of 3 ways.  Violence, govt edict or we as indidual actors in the economy stand up for ourselves.  I want number 3 but as many have stated (pentulant whine of a 5 year old) "but that is hard" so my money is on two.


This individual actor is saying 'f it'.  I'm at the point that I can afford a midwestern shack, rice and beans, and some 5-year-old tech castoffs for the rest of my life. I can't afford to have a kid or consume, consume, consume, but I can live.  You want me to wear an RFID tracking badge and put up fake smiling emotions? F that. You want me to be a 'ninja' on some half-baked moving target development platform that you can't even pronounce correctly? F that. Doing something entirely meaningless? That you can't even explain how it would be useful? And, you want to pay me crap because it's 'good experience'? F that. You want me to apply in thirty different cities and move on a moment's notice for a bloody job? F that.  You want me to work from home too? F that.

Do better than the workforce is doing now, and we'll talk. Otherwise, this National Merit Scholar is going out for a God-damned bike ride and splitting some firewood later. I'll be dead in fifty years either way.
 
2014-02-03 05:44:39 PM  

Magnanimous_J: Everyone is oversimplifying the issue.


Magnanimous_J: We need factory jobs here. They are going to suck and you're they're not going to pay well. Tough shiat. Pick up a book if you don't like it.


You don't say. :)

There's no historical reason that factory jobs have to pay terribly, though. "Re-shoring" of jobs by American companies is a direct function of living standards and pay increasing in China and elsewhere. We need our government investing in research and tech to develop new industries, instead of competing for the lowest-paying jobs.
 
2014-02-03 05:47:49 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: FarkedOver: Mr. Eugenides: FarkedOver: The rich need people to be poor.  They need the unemployed.  The fact that they need these things is exactly why they do everything in their power to make sure it is that way.

Care to explain why the rich need people to be poor and unemployed?

It drives down wages.  When more people are competing for jobs.

How does that in any way benefit the "rich"?

An unstated premise you are assuming is that economics is zero sum; that for me to have more, someone else must have less.  That's simply not true, wealth expands and contracts (though it mostly expands).

What helps the wealthy the most is for the economy (and total wealth) to expand. High unemployment and low wages is a sign of a contracting economy which is bad for the wealthy.


No it's mostly zero sum. There's a finite money supply, finite resources, finite amount of usable land, finite time, and finite demand. In a very real sense it's a zero sum game. To say otherwise is to dismiss reality and buy into magical economic thinking, and this is a popular delusion many economists still believe.

The only way in which the economy isn't a zero sum game is in the sense that we can ascribe any monetary value to an object. However the object still has finite utility and finite demand within the market.
 
2014-02-03 05:52:02 PM  

RanDomino: Magnanimous_J
The problem is that unionization is largely useless because you aren't competing with non-unionized labor, but with foreign, near slave labor and technology.

They could have been organizing with them instead of against them, and investing in worker ownership.


That's a good point, but how do you even begin to organize labor across multiple cultures and governments that are so very different?

UrukHaiGuyz: We need our government investing in research and tech to develop new industries, instead of competing for the lowest-paying jobs.


Couldn't agree more. Here's where I have a bit of cognitive dissonance: I hate how much money we spend on defense, yet it seems like the whole 20th century was built on the technologies that were developed for the military (or NASA/ the Military).
 
2014-02-03 06:08:57 PM  
I always love the, "Rich make better decisions than poor people argument."  because it just is so wrong.  I know two guys who were born into wealthy families, not 1%ers but well off.  These two guys have made more poor decisions than any dozen poor people I know.  Time after time when presented with a good choice or bad choice they will choose the one that hurts them most.  A poor person making the exact same choices would have devastating effects.  The reason they can make poor choice after poor choice is they have more cushion to fall back on.
Recent examples;
Send $3000 to internet 'girlfriend' so she can buy a plane ticket to visit.  No big deal, pocket change.  Poor person, that is 6 weeks pay, going to miss lots of bills and eat Ramen for a couple months.
Walk of a job in the morning...have a friend they met at the rich kids club in college get them a management position in their firm(even though they have never worked in the field).
One just up and disappeared for a couple weeks.  No phoning work or telling friends and family where he was going.  Came back and all was fine.  Still had a job, someone had paid his bills, fed his dog, watered his lawn and plants.  Poor guy does this, there is no job when he returns, plants and lawn are dead, and bills were not paid.
Same choice by a rich and poor person, the poor person is worse off and 1 step closer to being destitute.  Rich person makes the same choice and it is business as usual for them.
 
2014-02-03 06:12:36 PM  
Here's an interesting article that touches on inequality, among other things.
 
2014-02-03 06:14:56 PM  
I personally think taxes are too high across the board.  Our debt problem is the result of out of control spending, not a lack of funds.

However, I damn well better get a tax cut before those 1% bastards.  As a single guy making just shy of six figures, I'm being raped by the tax man.

Also, increasing the income tax on the rich won't bother them.  Very little of their money comes from "income".  If you want to get their attention, threaten to increase the capital gains tax.
 
2014-02-03 06:17:45 PM  

OgreMagi: I personally think taxes are too high across the board.


Yeah. I could see how someone living a bit too comfortably might think that.

Our debt problem is the result of out of control spending, not a lack of funds.

translation=stop giving handouts to poor people who won't work shiatty jobs

Makes sense.
 
2014-02-03 06:28:37 PM  
The reason  specific people are poor?  Usually no.

The reason that there are poor people around in general?  Most definitely yes.

The fact that responsibility and the consequences are distributed (i.e. an individual rich guy isn't responsible for an individual poor guy's poverty) doesn't mean that there isn't a problem, that it isn't caused by the rich, and that you don't bear some responsibility for it if you're in that group.
 
2014-02-03 07:01:05 PM  

jayhawk88: Among men 25 to 55 with a high school diploma or less, the share with jobs fell from more than 90 percent in 1970 to less than 75 percent in 2010, reports   . For African American men ages 20 to 24, less than half were working.

Reasons aside, those numbers - if accurate - are farking frightening.


They're true.

Go read "Coming Apart: The Story of White America 1960-2010".

There's literally 2 Americas.  There's the high-IQ, went-to-college super-rich super-liberal* church-going, married, not-having-bastards, voting, working, virtuous, rich people, and there's everyone else.  Who are none of those things.  And because of the internet and some selective moving, you're developing a separate culture ("I can't believe Nixon won.  No one I know voted for him."  Imagine that, but for every single person above the 80th percentile and for every single thing.)

And then if you want to have some real fun, consider that IQ was the main correlating factor (So if you're stupid and rich, you probably, on the average, won't be rich much longer, and ditto for smart/poor), the average black/hispanic IQ is somewhere in the high 80's (for reasons that shall not be discussed here).

*Around DC, NYC, LA, and SF.  Otherwise, they're normal.  Of course, since that's our politicians and our media...
 
2014-02-03 07:05:17 PM  

Jim_Callahan: The reason  specific people are poor?  Usually no.

The reason that there are poor people around in general?  Most definitely yes.

The fact that responsibility and the consequences are distributed (i.e. an individual rich guy isn't responsible for an individual poor guy's poverty) doesn't mean that there isn't a problem, that it isn't caused by the rich, and that you don't bear some responsibility for it if you're in that group.


Good distinction. That does seem to be a common topic the argument devolves into.
 
2014-02-03 07:21:11 PM  

meat0918: jayhawk88: Among men 25 to 55 with a high school diploma or less, the share with jobs fell from more than 90 percent in 1970 to less than 75 percent in 2010, reports   . For African American men ages 20 to 24, less than half were working.

Reasons aside, those numbers - if accurate - are farking frightening.

They are, but it is a reflection of a changing labor market.  Wealth concentrating at the top hasn't helped, but I feel he's taking the results from that change and saying "Pay no attention to the fact all the the vast majority of the wealth generated in the last 40 years has been concentrated in a small percentage of the population."

I'd also wager the percentage of the population with a high school diploma or less has fallen since the 70's too.

Still looking for a graph that goes back that far.

According to the latest numbers from the BLS, 10,748,000 that don't have a high school diploma are in the civilian labor force, with a participation rate of 43.7% and an unemployment rate of 9.8% for December 2013.

Those with a diploma but no college are at 36,242,000, participation rate of 58.0%, and an unemployment rate of 7.1%

For comparison, Bachelor's degree holders or higher are 49,759,000 civilian labor force, with a participation rate of 75.3%, and an unemployment rate of 3.3%

Total civilian labor force is 133,770,000 if I added up the numbers correctly, so that is about 8% of the labor force that doesn't have at least a high school diploma. and 35% that have a high school diploma or less.

Those numbers seasonally adjusted, and I kinda forgot what point I was trying to make.

Anyways.

It really seems he took a total number of people in those age ranges and said, look at all these people not working, even if they are not looking for work.


What's the rate of those with Masters degrees who are unemployed? Cuz I'm one of them.

/and no, it ain't Philosophy.
 
2014-02-03 07:24:07 PM  

nmrsnr: When defending the richest Americans, try not to have a comically villainous mustache.


img.fark.net

Or a pair of 70's-era Rapist Glasses
 
2014-02-03 07:33:15 PM  
Well, if I ever really want the shiat kicked out of a complete strawman, I'll hire the dunce that wrote TFA.
 
2014-02-03 07:55:56 PM  

jso2897: Well, if I ever really want the shiat kicked out of a complete strawman, I'll hire the dunce that wrote TFA.


Yeah. Why pay attention to the opinion of an award-winning business journalist?

After all, we have all the biting social commentary and tangled hamburger analogies we need, right here, from a bunch of anonymous FARKers.
 
2014-02-03 07:59:02 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: ikanreed: whistleridge: Flawed premise: rich people are in fact a big part of the reason poor people are poor. If you believe otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you; send me an email and we'll close this deal.

Well, it's not so much that it's not true, as it is unprovable.

Between the two of us, there is a table with 50 burgers on it.  Through various means, I obtain 49 of those 50 burgers, leaving you with 1.  It's not "unprovable" that I am the reason you only have 1 burger.


Except that the only reason the 50 burgers exist is because you invented the concept of burgers in the first place.

It's not zero-sum, we've got a fairly good idea about how to create wealth, and the price that you pay for it is that someone(s) end up with way too damn much of it.  But if you actually do something about that, then they stop making wealth, and you get the massive income disparities between the first and second world that were the result of the Cold War and Communism (and honestly, the existing difference between Europe and the USA.  Just saying, $20K/year/person plus much lower taxes buys a LOT of inequality).

The price for Windows was Bill Gates (and Microsoft Millionaires)
Apple - Jobs/Wozniak
Facebook - Zuckerberg
Netflix guys are worth a few hundred million at this point.
Repeat for every single big tech company.   There's a billionaire or two combined with a few hundred or thousand millionaires.  The price you pay for fast, accurate search is Larry Page.

At least on the tech side (ignoring niggling anti-trust issues), it's not like they sat down and stole money.  They created awesome products and worked 100 hour weeks doing so (and paid in stock so that their employees went along for the ride) and everyone agreed that they were awesome, and paid them a bunch of money because they were awesome.  And the founders took a risk in part because they thought that they could get super-rich doing this and would on average get richer than working an actual job.  And the VC's took a risk in part because they thought that, on average, they would make their investments back plus a bit plus a bit more as compensation for risk.

And if you don't have startups, you don't have as much tech, partly because of corporate politics (Look how much trouble Microsoft had creating a phone), and partly because you can invest a couple million dollars to a hundred teams trying a hundred different ways, make a 30000% return on the successful ones, and then have BigCorp buy out the best 2 or 3 a couple years down the line.  Low cost, high reward, high inequality technical development.  And the price you pay for startups is billionaires.

IT and China killed off manufacturing.   Computers increased income disparity because the winners won that much more (and economies of scale and network effect exist with avengeance), and it was that much easier to go off on your own.  That's the unfixable problem, and your current ways of trying to do it will just destroyAmerica'sentrepreneurial and technical leadership (and the corresponding brain drain).  Because while the current world sucks, you REALLY don't want to see the alternate world where Silicon Valley is based in [Not-USA] (or worse yet, doesn't exist at all, and we're stuck in the 1970's).  Because then we don't have our software engineers to make up for all the out-of-work manufacturers.

Besides, while wealth doesn't trickle down, tech does.  A Nexus 5 is $400 + $60/month to have the internet in your pocket.  Smartphones didn't exist 20 years ago.  Repeat for every single thing being developed since about 1975 until you hit some physical limit.


Mind you, I'd be for a *Getting you to poor* guaranteed minimum income if that was the entirety of the American welfare state (and people would stop  biatching about the inequality, because the inequality is  cool,because it says that people are/were doing cool things (or are providing the necessary "least evil" that is the investor class that actually funds all this crap in the hopes of making even more money)).  We're just about to the point where the GMI's cheaper than all the welfare anyways, so I'm kind of surprised we don't see a Republican bringing it up.  Paul Ryan's almost there with his "Seriously, with all the money we spend on poor people, how are there still poor people?"

And corporate welfare and unnecessary regulations are more or less the root of all evil because they DON'T create the even playing field that's necessary for the startups.

/And since someone's about to talk about equality, part of the defacto definition of capitalism is unequal reward for unequal value (as determined by what people are willing to pay).  And the general push of the 20th century was that the more inequality you were willing to accept (right up until you walked off the curve and hit Africa levels), the generally better off you became.  America > Europe > Commies > Africa.
//And since someone else is going to complain about government policies and corporate welfare, then I'd say that your problem is not wealth, but the conversion rate from wealth to power.  Figure out what to do about that.
 
2014-02-03 08:07:20 PM  

rvesco: Yeah. Why pay attention to the opinion of an award-winning business journalist?


are the people he is carrying water for giving out the awards?
 
2014-02-03 08:29:20 PM  
The "super rich" have completely gamed the system to extract as much as they can from it while contributing as little as possible. Money has inherent power in a Capitalist society and we need a government who caters to the needs of the average citizen in order to maintain the balance of power.
 
2014-02-03 08:52:44 PM  

A Cave Geek: Lcpl_Dunno: Stop demanding that they should get punished for success

No one's suggesting they are or should be.  What we're saying is that their incessant demands that they pay a smaller and smaller share of the tax burden is more than a little disingenuous.  The obscenely wealthy did NOT get that way (by and large) by their own hard work (People like Buffet, Gates, Bezos, etc.etc are exceptions) They got that way the old-fashioned way:  They inherited it, or only had the opportunities they did because of mommy and daddy's connections. When I hear them whine about their tax rate, I can't help but think of a few quotes from history on the subject.


Gates doesn't belong on that list; if his daddy hadn't bankrolled him he'd never have got anyplace.
 
2014-02-03 09:58:05 PM  

Lackofname: meat0918: jayhawk88: Among men 25 to 55 with a high school diploma or less, the share with jobs fell from more than 90 percent in 1970 to less than 75 percent in 2010, reports   . For African American men ages 20 to 24, less than half were working.

Reasons aside, those numbers - if accurate - are farking frightening.

They are, but it is a reflection of a changing labor market.  Wealth concentrating at the top hasn't helped, but I feel he's taking the results from that change and saying "Pay no attention to the fact all the the vast majority of the wealth generated in the last 40 years has been concentrated in a small percentage of the population."

I'd also wager the percentage of the population with a high school diploma or less has fallen since the 70's too.

Still looking for a graph that goes back that far.

According to the latest numbers from the BLS, 10,748,000 that don't have a high school diploma are in the civilian labor force, with a participation rate of 43.7% and an unemployment rate of 9.8% for December 2013.

Those with a diploma but no college are at 36,242,000, participation rate of 58.0%, and an unemployment rate of 7.1%

For comparison, Bachelor's degree holders or higher are 49,759,000 civilian labor force, with a participation rate of 75.3%, and an unemployment rate of 3.3%

Total civilian labor force is 133,770,000 if I added up the numbers correctly, so that is about 8% of the labor force that doesn't have at least a high school diploma. and 35% that have a high school diploma or less.

Those numbers seasonally adjusted, and I kinda forgot what point I was trying to make.

Anyways.

It really seems he took a total number of people in those age ranges and said, look at all these people not working, even if they are not looking for work.

What's the rate of those with Masters degrees who are unemployed? Cuz I'm one of them.

/and no, it ain't Philosophy.


3.3% for Bachelor's degree or higher.  They don't break it down beyond that mark.
 
2014-02-03 10:49:15 PM  
meyerkev
It's not zero-sum, we've got a fairly good idea about how to create wealth

At any given moment, there's only so much wealth in existence.

At least on the tech side (ignoring niggling anti-trust issues), it's not like they sat down and stole money. They created awesome products and worked 100 hour weeks doing so (and paid in stock so that their employees went along for the ride) and everyone agreed that they were awesome

Blah blah blah, the old Horatio Alger bullshiat. Yes, it's occasionally possible to get a bunch of money by designing something that can be copied a billion times and getting a cut. But it's far more viable and common to fark over your employees, manipulate governmental bodies, own a bank, and generally engage in legal robbery.

Mind you, I'd be for a *Getting you to poor* guaranteed minimum income if that was the entirety of the American welfare state (and people would stop biatching about the inequality, because the inequality is cool,because it says that people are/were doing cool things

You have no friends because you don't understand the importance of opening with the statement that everyone agrees with, and then shutting your facehole.
 
2014-02-03 10:57:46 PM  
I think some time in the near future there will be two types of Americans.  One populated by people that were born on third base thinking they hit a triple while the rest are born on first base but never advance to second because each deep sac fly life gives them they are too busy complaining about the biatch standing on third base eating crackers like she owns the place.
 
2014-02-04 01:16:00 AM  
Lcpl_Dunno:
While you may have missed ONE opportunity at that exact moment due to lack of vigilance ON YOUR OWN PART, that does not preclude you from any future opportunity and further more ought to make one more vigilant (for having missed once in the passed) to those opportunities arising. Whatever isn't quite counter-able, but I would suggest the same method of taking responsibility and work would answer sufficiently.

The rich guy asking the poor guy why he doesn't turn his yearly income to assets is reasonable ... I guess. To be fair the "poor guy" probably lives an overly lavish lifestyle (considering his income) to make this happen. He makes a choice to own an iPad instead of save the money and invest somewhere. While that investment may not pay off immediately or even at all; the iPad NEVER will (as a business tool aside, purely entertainment use of iPad described). While this life style does not include personal jets or 200,000 cars it is still one that is alterable to suit the needs of wealth gain. This could (potentially with lot's of work viewing investments) set the poor guy up as fairly well off at the very least. I happen to know a couple of people who started this sort of venture off of US military salaries, so I am going to guess that being a billionaire to begin with is not required. (Before one of you says luck, the guy described adamantly refuses to accept that. He has put in hours watching markets and makes deals accordingly).

You make some fair points, but on some others I think you're either making assumptions that don't add up or are mistaken about a few things.

While any person is certainly responsible for any opportunities that they miss that shouldn't be taken to mean that opportunities are so abundant that every one willing to work hard will be presented with several and can miss one or two and still seize another. If opportunities were that abundant then there would be so many sitting out there from people not being vigilant enough to grab them that we'd all be stumbling over opportunity and prospering by sheer force of statistical probability.
Equivalent opportunity does not necessarily exist across the socio-economic scale. I would expect it to be much more likely that fewer opportunities exist for those in the bottom two quintiles than for those in the top three (and now I have to go look and try and find out, dammit).
Also, anecdotally, I've known several soldiers who were able to take their modest pay and turn it into something. They told me how helpful it was not to have any bills since all they had to pay for themselves was car insurance and fuel. They lived on post, ate on post, were clothed on post and had their health tended on post. I'm not suggesting they didn't work their asses off for their pay or that they didn't deserve any of those things. I just feel it should be pointed out that a soldier can avail himself of things that a civilian worker cannot.


As far as the "poor guy" with an iPad, I'm not sure you and most most people in favor of strengthening social safety nets are talking about the same group of people. A "poor guy" with an iPad is usually a lower middle class white guy who thinks he's poor because he's not rich and biatches about being poor because he's envious of those who are. This is not the guy people are thinking of when they condemn politicians for cutting food stamps.
They're thinking of an actual poor person, one who lives with poverty every day. A guy who's working a dead end job, or two, and if someone gave him an iPad as a gift he'd sell it to put food on the table. He makes a choice to try and avoid seeing his family starve every day.

You mention back breaking labor not being a means to getting "rich" as if getting rich was the goal of poor people (or people in general). Are most non-wealthy trying to become rich? Most of what I've seen and read suggests the goal is more moderate than that. A decent home, good schools, the ability to vacation or travel more than once a decade, etc. and most advocates for the poor aren't trying to create a system that allows poor people to become wealthy. They're just want to see upward mobility more of a possibility than it currently is.
 
2014-02-04 05:56:57 AM  

rvesco: jso2897: Well, if I ever really want the shiat kicked out of a complete strawman, I'll hire the dunce that wrote TFA.

Yeah. Why pay attention to the opinion of an award-winning business journalist?

After all, we have all the biting social commentary and tangled hamburger analogies we need, right here, from a bunch of anonymous FARKers.


AH - the "Argument from Authority" - subversion "Fancy Shingle on the Wall".
 
2014-02-04 08:39:51 AM  
FTA:

Mostly, the rich got rich by running profitable small businesses

LOL!
 
Displayed 33 of 133 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report