40 Hour Work Week & Poverty

[Donelladan]

What % of poverty could be attributed to reckless spending, waste, poor decisions, not caring etc

Please add more options in your poll. Want to reply 0.1%. Thx.

[tzor]

@tzor The point your 'Harvard professor' is making is that domestic workers having to compete with much cheaper foreign labor would cause everyone's wages to drop, not that a minimum wage will shut Chinese people out of Australia.

It's not foreign/domestic. The problem is domestic/domestic, with the "favored class" wanting to keep the "unfavored class" from directly competing with them, because the unfavored class will do anything (including work at a lower wage) in order to get the job over the "favored class" and the "favored class" doesn't want to see that happen, so they legislate it away.

[mrswdk]

@tzor The point your 'Harvard professor' is making is that domestic workers having to compete with much cheaper foreign labor would cause everyone's wages to drop, not that a minimum wage will shut Chinese people out of Australia.

It's not foreign/domestic. The problem is domestic/domestic, with the "favored class" wanting to keep the "unfavored class" from directly competing with them, because the unfavored class will do anything (including work at a lower wage) in order to get the job over the "favored class" and the "favored class" doesn't want to see that happen, so they legislate it away.

Well then replace Chinese with 'poor black people', Australians with 'rich white inbreds' and Australia with 'the American job market'. The logic is still the same - why would black and white labor costing the same suddenly cut black people out of the employment market?

[Phatscotty]

that they cannot afford food when in reality they can afford food, they just wan't to use the money that would have been for food for other things. It's a total mockery of the very compassion you claim it to be

I don't see it that way. I want to help people to give them the option to make a decent life for themselves. If people f*ck it up, there's not much we can or should do about that, except for try and educate people on the importance of spending money wisely. For example, despite not knowing much about the economic implications, I support in principle the idea of a universal basic income. That doesn't mean I think we should put strings on it and try to dictate how people spend it. America is about giving people the opportunity to succeed, and I do believe in that.

So where you and I will differ, and this is something that is very deep-seated in the difference between conservatives and liberals, is in how much of this I am willing to tolerate before I start thinking the policy was a bad idea. And if it's 1% (which, to answer your question, I think would be a reasonable a priori guess), I am completely willing to accept that to help the 99%.

I know you don't see it that way, and I don't judge you or criticize you based on that like you do me. Instead I try to counter with relevant information on the topic. Like yes there is something we can do about that, but it would violate what you consider to be 'Freedom'; problem is it seems you are only concerned about the total and absolute Freedom and privacy of the benefit receiver, while totally against the Freedom and privacy of the benefit producer/tax payer.

If you support a universal income, you may indeed not be putting strings on it and try to dictate how people spend it. But that can only be supported if you only consider the benefit receiver, in that universal income being that the money is coming from someone else who earned it you would be supporting put strings on it and try to dictate how taxpayers spend their wages, more importantly how they are not even allowed to consider spending their wages.

And to shrug off the abuse I opine is rampant certainly is not the best option. We are human beings in the year 2014, I', pretty sure we can find a way to help people without ignoring the abuse/fraud/waste. Otherwise, I'm guessing that others would be able to rightly counter that the abuse/fraud/waste of corporations who don't pay their taxes, they can just put their hands in the air and shrug there is nothing we can do about it.

[tzor]

Well then replace Chinese with 'poor black people', Australians with 'rich white inbreds' and Australia with 'the American job market'. The logic is still the same - why would black and white labor costing the same suddenly cut black people out of the employment market?

Because people are bigots.
People are also greedy.

Thus it is necessary for GREED >= BIGOTRY in order for things to become equal.

Remember it doesn't have to be race, it could also be age.

That guy in his 30's ... I'm sure he knows how to work hard, but that 18 year old kid probably doesn't know squat.

[mrswdk]

Q: Why would black and white labor costing the same suddenly cut black people out of the employment market?
A: Because people are bigots.

0/10.

[nietzsche]

This thread pisses me off so much.

Scotty you piss me off so much when you take these attitudes.

[AndyDufresne]

Instead I try to counter with relevant information on the topic.

--Andy

[danfrank666]

What % of poverty could be attributed to reckless spending, waste, poor decisions, not caring etc

Please add more options in your poll. Want to reply 0.1%. Thx.

I am the lone ten percenter.

[crispybits]

I know you don't see it that way, and I don't judge you or criticize you based on that like you do me. Instead I try to counter with relevant information on the topic. Like yes there is something we can do about that, but it would violate what you consider to be 'Freedom'; problem is it seems you are only concerned about the total and absolute Freedom and privacy of the benefit receiver, while totally against the Freedom and privacy of the benefit producer/tax payer.

If you support a universal income, you may indeed not be putting strings on it and try to dictate how people spend it. But that can only be supported if you only consider the benefit receiver, in that universal income being that the money is coming from someone else who earned it you would be supporting put strings on it and try to dictate how taxpayers spend their wages, more importantly how they are not even allowed to consider spending their wages.

And to shrug off the abuse I opine is rampant certainly is not the best option. We are human beings in the year 2014, I', pretty sure we can find a way to help people without ignoring the abuse/fraud/waste. Otherwise, I'm guessing that others would be able to rightly counter that the abuse/fraud/waste of corporations who don't pay their taxes, they can just put their hands in the air and shrug there is nothing we can do about it.

Quick question for clarification here PS - if you spend money for a service from a company then that money becomes their money, and if (for example) Starbucks takes the $200 you spent with them and spends it on wages, property, insurance or stock you don't ever feel like you have any say in that. Once you pay for the services you get then it becomes their money and they can spend it however they decide best. If they spend it on something you disapprove of, then you take your business elsewhere.

So why when it's the government do you feel like what the government spends the money it has exchanged for government services with you it's a different situation? The government could spend that money on benefits, or infrastructure, or NASA or whatever and if you don't like the way they are spending it then you get the chance to vote in a different government on a regular basis. But ince you pay your taxes then that's not your money any more, it's the government's money, and whoever is in control of the government can spend that money however they decide best.

[danfrank666]

Q: Why would black and white labor costing the same suddenly cut black people out of the employment market?
A: Because people are bigots.

0/10.

That makes absolutely no sense. What percentage of the african american ( whoever coined that term should be shot ) community that are tallied as unemployed actually make a nice living working the BLACK market ?

[crispybits]

Also this might be worth throwing into the discussion:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 ... ezra-klein

[Lootifer]

Q: Why would black and white labor costing the same suddenly cut black people out of the employment market?
A: Because people are bigots.

0/10.

Intelligent white male in a first world country checking in to confirm. I won the life lottery and get to play on the easiest setting. #fuckyeah

[nietzsche]

I'm sexier than you anyway.

[DoomYoshi]

that they cannot afford food when in reality they can afford food, they just wan't to use the money that would have been for food for other things. It's a total mockery of the very compassion you claim it to be

I don't see it that way. I want to help people to give them the option to make a decent life for themselves. If people f*ck it up, there's not much we can or should do about that, except for try and educate people on the importance of spending money wisely. For example, despite not knowing much about the economic implications, I support in principle the idea of a universal basic income. That doesn't mean I think we should put strings on it and try to dictate how people spend it. America is about giving people the opportunity to succeed, and I do believe in that.

So where you and I will differ, and this is something that is very deep-seated in the difference between conservatives and liberals, is in how much of this I am willing to tolerate before I start thinking the policy was a bad idea. And if it's 1% (which, to answer your question, I think would be a reasonable a priori guess), I am completely willing to accept that to help the 99%.

I know you don't see it that way, and I don't judge you or criticize you based on that like you do me. Instead I try to counter with relevant information on the topic. Like yes there is something we can do about that, but it would violate what you consider to be 'Freedom'; problem is it seems you are only concerned about the total and absolute Freedom and privacy of the benefit receiver, while totally against the Freedom and privacy of the benefit producer/tax payer.

If you support a universal income, you may indeed not be putting strings on it and try to dictate how people spend it. But that can only be supported if you only consider the benefit receiver, in that universal income being that the money is coming from someone else who earned it you would be supporting put strings on it and try to dictate how taxpayers spend their wages, more importantly how they are not even allowed to consider spending their wages.

And to shrug off the abuse I opine is rampant certainly is not the best option. We are human beings in the year 2014, I', pretty sure we can find a way to help people without ignoring the abuse/fraud/waste. Otherwise, I'm guessing that others would be able to rightly counter that the abuse/fraud/waste of corporations who don't pay their taxes, they can just put their hands in the air and shrug there is nothing we can do about it.

I am trying to parse this theoretically.

Here is a theory:
The act of gift-giving has 3 main components, the giver, the receiver and the gift.

By definition, the receiver doesn't earn the gift. I don't "deserve" a birthday. My father earned me a birthday cake. The act of earning a gift was defined by the ancients as for-give-ness. The act of receiving a gift is defined as thanks-giving.

My point is that welfare is not earned by the recipient. Gifts can't be earned by the recipient, or they are not gifts, they are either stolen or traded. They are earned by the giver in an act of forgiveness.

Phatscotty just wants an ol' Check-Plus for being a forgiver.

Here you go:

[notyou2]

Also this might be worth throwing into the discussion:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 ... ezra-klein

Good article, and research that has useful value.

[mrswdk]

Q: Why would black and white labor costing the same suddenly cut black people out of the employment market?
A: Because people are bigots.

0/10.

Intelligent white male in a first world country checking in to confirm. I won the life lottery and get to play on the easiest setting. #fuckyeah

Yeah, but I bet you can't run people over and get away with it on account of your dad being deputy chief of the local police force.

[Phatscotty]

that they cannot afford food when in reality they can afford food, they just wan't to use the money that would have been for food for other things. It's a total mockery of the very compassion you claim it to be

I don't see it that way. I want to help people to give them the option to make a decent life for themselves. If people f*ck it up, there's not much we can or should do about that, except for try and educate people on the importance of spending money wisely. For example, despite not knowing much about the economic implications, I support in principle the idea of a universal basic income. That doesn't mean I think we should put strings on it and try to dictate how people spend it. America is about giving people the opportunity to succeed, and I do believe in that.

So where you and I will differ, and this is something that is very deep-seated in the difference between conservatives and liberals, is in how much of this I am willing to tolerate before I start thinking the policy was a bad idea. And if it's 1% (which, to answer your question, I think would be a reasonable a priori guess), I am completely willing to accept that to help the 99%.

I know you don't see it that way, and I don't judge you or criticize you based on that like you do me. Instead I try to counter with relevant information on the topic. Like yes there is something we can do about that, but it would violate what you consider to be 'Freedom'; problem is it seems you are only concerned about the total and absolute Freedom and privacy of the benefit receiver, while totally against the Freedom and privacy of the benefit producer/tax payer.

If you support a universal income, you may indeed not be putting strings on it and try to dictate how people spend it. But that can only be supported if you only consider the benefit receiver, in that universal income being that the money is coming from someone else who earned it you would be supporting put strings on it and try to dictate how taxpayers spend their wages, more importantly how they are not even allowed to consider spending their wages.

And to shrug off the abuse I opine is rampant certainly is not the best option. We are human beings in the year 2014, I'm pretty sure we can find a way to help people without ignoring the abuse/fraud/waste. Otherwise, I'm guessing that others would be able to rightly counter that the abuse/fraud/waste of corporations who don't pay their taxes, they can just put their hands in the air and shrug there is nothing we can do about it.

addendum: Nice move there Mets (in bold) I didn't even catch it the first time. It's not about the difference between Liberals and Conservatives at all, it's about right and wrong. It's about lying about your income, cheating the tax payer, stealing money that is intended for the very same people you and I both want to help.

My post was 100% directed at you Mets. I solely wanted you to admit that it was at least 1%, because I was betting you couldn't even admit there was an ounce of abuse, and even if you knew privately there was, it doesn't matter because there is a need for food for poor people. But your juxtaposing/trolling what you want the message to be over my message had one fail point, since my post was a direct response to your post, directly on the topic of you stating that it was highly unlikely anyone could know exactly what % of food stamps were abused. Your fail comes when upon my asking you directly to admit at least 1%, all of a sudden accepting a % can be discovered, and you run with that 1% as if I just stated the % was 1%, and then jump to the conclusion that I want to radically reverse policy based on 1% waste, which is an absolute joke since I said nothing of the matter.

It's funny when you think about it, your belief system is so dogmatic you ignore the truth in the way I believe you imagine fanatic Christians ignoring science. I detect the exact same blind acceptance in you.

The only thing that is deep-seated is the Liberal Democrat claim to other people's time, money, and labor, and it goes all the way back to the Democrat slave owner. Liberals (like Mets) claim other people's money is theirs and nobody has any right to look at what they do with the money, not even the justification to even attempt to ensure that food-aid goes for food., Meanwhile they are knee deep in their own shit constantly basing everything on money the people who produce the benefits earn and do and spend it on. Conservatives are against other people putting claims on their life and their lives work, the very essence of Freedom. That we are entitled to keep the fruits of our own labor, which also goes all the way back to freeing the slaves, and certainly the one who did the labor has more right to that fruit than another who did not earn it, and without a doubt the person laughing at you behind your back sitting on the couch all day has least right to the producers money than anyone else on the planet.

[Metsfanmax]

My post was 100% directed at you Mets. I solely wanted you to admit that it was at least 1%, because I was betting you couldn't even admit there was an ounce of abuse, and even if you knew privately there was, it doesn't matter because there is a need for food for poor people. But your juxtaposing/trolling what you want the message to be over my message had one fail point, since my post was a direct response to your post, directly on the topic of you stating that it was highly unlikely anyone could know exactly what % of food stamps were abused. Your fail comes when upon my asking you directly to admit at least 1%, all of a sudden accepting a % can be discovered, and you run with that 1% as if I just stated the % was 1%, and then jump to the conclusion that I want to radically reverse policy based on 1% waste, which is an absolute joke since I said nothing of the matter.

Man you suck at reading. Just quit it already.

Public policy can and must be interested in doing the greatest good for the greatest number. Suppose the number of abusers is 1%. Is that enough to indict the system? Isn't the good of the 99% who are responsible with the money more important than the loss to the 1%?

But yeah sure, if it helps your ego to think that answering a question with one sentence means that I'm suddenly wanting to "radically reverse policy" because of a hypothetical question you posed that I actually posed first, go for it. Just f*ck off and stop acting like you know anything about... well... anything.

[Phatscotty]

My post was 100% directed at you Mets. I solely wanted you to admit that it was at least 1%, because I was betting you couldn't even admit there was an ounce of abuse, and even if you knew privately there was, it doesn't matter because there is a need for food for poor people. But your juxtaposing/trolling what you want the message to be over my message had one fail point, since my post was a direct response to your post, directly on the topic of you stating that it was highly unlikely anyone could know exactly what % of food stamps were abused. Your fail comes when upon my asking you directly to admit at least 1%, all of a sudden accepting a % can be discovered, and you run with that 1% as if I just stated the % was 1%, and then jump to the conclusion that I want to radically reverse policy based on 1% waste, which is an absolute joke since I said nothing of the matter.

Man you suck at reading. Just quit it already

Public policy can and must be interested in doing the greatest good for the greatest number. Suppose the number of abusers is 1%. Is that enough to indict the system? Isn't the good of the 99% who are responsible with the money more important than the loss to the 1%?

Man you suck at trolling

Hey you know what would be better than a poll based on uninformed opinions? How about some actual scholarly research on this topic? Phatscotty, let me know if you care to read some, I will find some.

Well, let's start with 1%. Mets, do you think that 1% of people who are in poverty are in poverty because they smoke 2 packs of cigarettes a day, totaling nearly 500$ a month? Maybe we can get you to rule out 0%

That is not me trying to indict the system, it's about the poll and the %. That is Phatscotty asking Mets a question, and Mets jumping to all kinds of extreme conclusions whilst in-artfully dodging the question. But don't let me disturb you from dictating what public policy 'must' be.

[Metsfanmax]

Hey you know what would be better than a poll based on uninformed opinions? How about some actual scholarly research on this topic? Phatscotty, let me know if you care to read some, I will find some.

Well, let's start with 1%. Mets, do you think that 1% of people who are in poverty are in poverty because they smoke 2 packs of cigarettes a day, totaling nearly 500$ a month? Maybe we can get you to rule out 0%

That is not me trying to indict the system, it's about the poll and the %. That is Phatscotty asking Mets a question, and Mets jumping to all kinds of extreme conclusions whilst in-artfully dodging the question. But don't let me disturb you from dictating what public policy 'must' be.

Can you even cite one instance of me dictating what public policy 'must' be in this thread? Of course not, because you don't actually read what people post. You just respond to whatever you feel like responding to, because that's easier than thinking about what other people say. All I asked for was some actual fucking evidence instead of a poll answered by a bunch of random people from an internet Risk forum, and apparently even that was too much for Phat Scotty. I mean, if you want a great example of "artfully dodging," just look at your own goddamn post: I ask for scholarly research, you start asking what I think on the topic. I mean, I appreciate that you think of me as a scholar but really I'm a physicist not a social scientist.

[Metsfanmax]

Now, back to the topic at hand:

You know what would be better than a poll based on uninformed opinions? How about some actual scholarly research on this topic? Anyone interested?

[Phatscotty]

Now, back to the topic at hand:

You know what would be better than a poll based on uninformed opinions? How about some actual scholarly research on this topic? Anyone interested?

Like I said when I made the poll.

Let's talk about how much of the poverty situation has to do with reckless spending and irresponsibility, or people who are addicted to feeding every impulse they have, fly by nighters etc. 10%? 20%? Maybe you can't guesstimate a number but I think we can talk about things that might give us a ballpark.

Why how dare we offer examples and opinions based on our own experiences!!!!!! Admit it, you are just hissy-fitting that people are shining a light in places that you depend on remaining dark. You are just mad that a taxpayer who works very fucking hard for their money even dare to bring up accountability.....

[Metsfanmax]

Now, back to the topic at hand:

You know what would be better than a poll based on uninformed opinions? How about some actual scholarly research on this topic? Anyone interested?

Like I said when I made the poll.

Let's talk about how much of the poverty situation has to do with reckless spending and irresponsibility, or people who are addicted to feeding every impulse they have, fly by nighters etc. 10%? 20%? Maybe you can't guesstimate a number but I think we can talk about things that might give us a ballpark.

Why how dare we offer examples and opinions based on our own experiences!!!!!!

Actually, yes. Exactly. It is a common error to think that your opinion should matter on questions of fact. It doesn't. No one gives a shit about what Phatscotty thinks about a question of objective fact. It's like having a poll on how much of Earth's gravitational field can be attributed to invisible fairies. It's a complete waste of time because after all of your spitballing we won't be any closer to an actual answer, for the reasons I expressed earlier. Instead, we could -- and should -- consult people whose actual professional career it is to study and think about these things if we actually want to get some truth.

Next time you think about making a poll, consider whether the answer can actually determined by a bunch of people from an internet Risk forum. If the answer to that is no, don't make the poll. Everyone will be much better off.

[Phatscotty]

This thread pisses me off so much.

Scotty you piss me off so much when you take these attitudes.

What attitude is that? That there should be even the tiniest bit of a discussion that could lead to an ounce of accountability?

I already know the answer: 'f*ck you, pay me!"