Forums → WEPR → [spam necro] Rich/Poor divide?

Yes your dad should search for better job.

Thats not really an option for most people

Well then thats bad luck

We live in a day and age where it shouldnt be left to bad luck and most learned people know it (regardless of whether they care). Thats why there are people angry at the rich poor divide and rightly so. For a start its getting in the way of human ability to leave this earth with a unified purpose and wise use of resources and instead causes selfish use of resources to further the ends of a select group of "lucky" people which doesnt help the human race very quickly.

Also, if the african workers are unlucky then the rich are lucky and didnt actually earn their wealth regardless of hard work.

My quote buttons are not appearing, so I hope I quoted correctly.

No they have done hard work in their field at some point in they life.

But you just said that regardless of work then its bad luck. So even if someone works hard they need good luck as well right? (Im not sarcastic here btw)

What Im saying is... this doesnt need to be the case and the longer people ignore this solid fact, the longer the poor and rich divide will be there.

So even if someone works hard they need good luck as well right?

to become rich?
yes.

you can work very hard but if you do not have the luck of knowing the right people or getting seen by the pulic. it wont pay off. the most importend thing to get rich is to been seen by others. and you need luck to be seen by the right people or many people.

No they have done hard work in their field at some point in they life.

As I already pointed out one does not need to work hard, just know how to con.

For a start its getting in the way of human ability to leave this earth with a unified purpose and wise use of resources and instead causes selfish use of resources to further the ends of a select group of "lucky" people which doesnt help the human race very quickly.

The gap between rich and poor is not a cause, it is a result.

There are two different ways to look at wealth. I won't get into details.

Most people believe wealth should be obtained depending on how much work or effort one put into earning said wealth. This idea is true in some cases, but it is far too specific. You can really branch out from this idea of wealth distribution, but I'll only use one example.

An employer hires two men at the same time. Both men share identical jobs and work identical hours. The only difference between the two men is that only one of them is a college graduate. It's not uncommon to find people who believe the college graduate should make more money, even if he is no more proficient than the high school graduate. The idea is that the college graduate put more time, effort, and money into their education. They worked harder to get to where they are (even if it's a job anyone can learn), therefore they deserve more pay.

There are a number of different views as to how effort or hard work should be rewarded, many of which conflict with one another. Personally, I believe an employer should pay the most productive person more money, not the person who went to college, but it's really up to the employer.

People become wealthy for a number of different reasons. Some of them are honest means of obtaining wealth, some are dishonest, and some are debatable. Wealth should not be obtained through theft, fraud, or any form of coercion. Wealth should only be obtained through non-coercive means. Wealth should not measure the means in which it is obtained. We can not look at wealth and simply assume that it measures how hard they worked. There are so many different ways wealth can be obtained, all of them requiring different levels of effort to obtain.

If we look at the previous example I provided, the man who graduated college made more than the high school graduate, despite having the same job. Ideally, the man who makes more money should be the man who produced more. If the high school graduate produces more than the college graduate, ideally, he should be rewarded more because he produces more. Sure, this also ties in with who works harder, but it's not the effort that's being rewarded, it's the outcome of said effort that's being rewarded.

There are many entertainers who become wealthy, despite the fact that they don't have to put as much effort into their jobs as those who perform manual labor. However, these people provide entertainment that other people enjoy and are willing to pay for. Many people would see this as unfair.

Lastly, there's inheritance. I have a huge problem with people who want to tax inheritance, or take it away completely. I don't really need to explain why people feel inheritance is wrong.

-One issue I have with people who want to tax inheritance or to take it away completely is that it punishes people for dying. Inheritance is identical to any other gift, except that the person giving the gift is dead. Let's look at Bimmy and Jimmy. Both of their parents are incredibly wealthy. When Bimmy turns 21, his father decides to give him 2 million dollars. When Jimmy turns 21, his father passes away, leaving him with 2 million dollars worth of inheritance. If we were to take inheritance away from people, then we would be punishing Jimmy for having a dead father.

-Another example is if we look at the time in which a person dies. Again, we'll use Jimmy and Bimmy. Jimmy's father spends millions of dollars on Jimmy's education. His father also buys him his first house and a small business. Jimmy inherited his wealth and has it easy. Bimmy's father had plans to do the same as Jimmy's father, except he dies when Bimmy is only 5 years old. The inheritance is taken away so that people can not inherit their wealth "unfairly". Bimmy has to go to a free public school, work for money so that he can go to college, then save up money for half his life just to open up a business. When you compare Bimmy to the middle class or poor man, it seems fair that he has to work as hard as them to obtain more. However, when you look at the picture as a whole, there is no denying that Bimmy is being punished for the death of his father.

In the end, when a person inherits their wealth, they'll use that wealth in a number of different ways. If they are irresponsible with their wealth, then they lose it. If they use that wealth to profit, then they provide goods and services for others,despite their lack of effort to obtain their initial amount of wealth.

There are a lot of people here saying that the rich work hard and that the poor don't work very hard. Though this is often true, it's not always the case. There are many different ways in which people become rich, as well as many different ways in which people become poor.

The gap between rich and poor is NOT a way in which we can measure poverty. It is NOT a way in which we can measure the well being of the people. To use it as such is asinine. If we look at many 3rd world countries where a few people own most of the wealth, we'll see that living conditions for the least wealthy, the poor, are absolutely horrible. If we look at the wealth gap in America, we'll notice that the living conditions for the least wealthy are very high, and that the number of people living in poverty is very low.

On the same note, we can not measure living conditions solely based on how small the gap is either.

we'll see that living conditions for the least wealthy, the poor, are absolutely horrible.

If we look at the wealth gap in America, we'll notice that the living conditions for the least wealthy are very high,

America


3rd world country


I will however give you that the numbers of people living in these conditions in America aren't as high, but the living conditions of the least wealthy in America can be down right appalling and should be a disgrace to the country.

I will however give you that the numbers of people living in these conditions in America aren't as high

You're taking what I said completely out of context.

When I brought up the low poverty levels in America, I was not arguing that America doesn't have anyone at poverty level. I was making the point that you can NOT use the wealth gap to measure poverty. Providing pictures of Americans who are homeless will not refute this point.

Poverty in America, as well as every other country in the world, is a problem. However, closing the wealth gap will NOT vanquish poverty. As I said before, the wealth gap is a result, not a cause.

Dammit! Where have my quote buttons gone

As I said before, the wealth gap is a result, not a cause.

I dont really see how the gap of wealth is not a *cause* of things just as the gap between rich and poor is one of the *results* of badly used resources (obviously, there is more to it). If the resources were used wisely then more people would have a fair living standard. As it is, the resources have been used badly and selfishly, leaving much of the human race in a bad position.

If we close the gap, we have more evenly distributed resources and better living standard. Its not as if there is a shortage of food, clothing or medicine in the world. Any shortages could literally be solved with better use of resources. This is sickening to me.

If the resources were used wisely then more people would have a fair living standard. As it is, the resources have been used badly and selfishly, leaving much of the human race in a bad position.

No. It's all economics, the social science that analyzes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Scarcity is at the root of economics, and resources go to the ones who can compete to get them. That's the natural order of things, and there's no ''flaw'' in it. As Nemo said, the wealthy get there, largely through their own means. They shouldn't be punished.

The gap itself can be a problem if the bottom strata of society are mired in poverty. If the ''oor'' are however, not ''oor'', then why must things be equalised? In that case, what incentive is there to be rich? You already tax wealth generated from stock options, which is a reason why my country is seeing such a huge flow of American citizens changing citizenship to Singaporean, because we don't tax that.

If we close the gap, we have more evenly distributed resources and better living standard.

There can be better standards of living with the gap. Why should the average Joe benefit just because the rich are richer? "Poor" does not indicate a ''shortage'', is a ''oor'' man being only able to afford a Toyota, whilst the rich can afford a Ferrari, ''oor'' distribution of resources? No. If the poor can so easily benefit, what use is there to go to college if I can still benefit in the long run? France's 75% income tax on the rich, will be a disaster in the making.

As I already pointed out one does not need to work hard, just know how to con.

I meant
No,they have done hard work in their field at some point in they life.(Unless they are born with a gold spoon, then they are just lucky.)

No,they have done hard work in their field at some point in they life.(Unless they are born with a gold spoon, then they are just lucky.)

not always. some people had just a idea that the public picked up and became rich in literaly weeks. some social media sites are a good example for this.

not always. some people had just a idea that the public picked up and became rich in literaly weeks. some social media sites are a good example for this.

Those seem to be in the minority...Just how many miracles like FB have there been in proportion to the wealthy?

No,they have done hard work in their field at some point in they life.(Unless they are born with a gold spoon, then they are just lucky.)

I thought we had concluded they were lucky anyway, golden spoon or not.

Why should the average Joe benefit just because the rich are richer?

If average joe has better living standards, average joe becomes a better worker.

Scarcity is at the root of economics

And the funny thing is that, for the most important resources i.e. the ones we NEED to live, scarcity is a lie. Its a complete fabrication. Im not talking about ferrari's or toyota's. Im talking about BASIC living needs that many many many people on earth simply do not have. Right now, the economy is failing the poor and feeding more money to the rich. And you wonder why I see a problem with the rich!

If the ''oor'' are however, not ''oor'', then why must things be equalised?

Um... the poor are, in actual fact, poor.

Im astounded by the lack of empathy here and this is mirrored in the way that the poor are delt with, especially by those in a good position who never, ever, feel the sting of poverty and who will never worry about the next days food.

I have been in this position as a 1st world poor person which I admit, puts me in a lucky position and right now Im not poor, which I am sooooooooo happy about, trust me. But I know what its like. The psychological effects of being poor and having little opportunity to pull yourself out of it are an avoidable reality. Is this not easy to see? Is it not worth helping out fellow humans and having some empathy?