Forums → WEPR → [spam necro] Rich/Poor divide?
| 139 | 66108 |
Essentially how do the rich keep on getting richer whilst the poor keep on getting poorer. Surely in a civilised society the rich should sacrifice a few of their fast cars and big houses so that the people who slave 12 hours a day in their sweat shops can eat.
Discuss.
- 139 Replies
Please gloss over all gramatical mistakes in my previous post :S
The rich really ARE getting richer, that much is plain to see (and when you remember we have limited resources, that is actually a scary thing in itself),
The cost of resources will still fluctuate, regardless as to whether one person buys 100,000 of x materials, or if 100,000 people buy one of x materials each. As we use more rare resources, the prices go up. Whenever those resources become scarce, the prices will be ridiculously high, which will prevent the resources from being used up.
There's a reason mammoth ivory chess pieces cost $13,000 dollars! Also, if anyone wants to buy me this chess set as a gift, I'll be your best friend for a week. I'm willing to make further negotiations.
but the poor generally have always been poor, there is only a certain level of poorness you can drop to and people from all countries are in this situation, regardless of reletive amounts i.e. less people in USA are poor compared to the amount of poor in Africa. But being poor has never been so plainly obvious and wrong in this world of communication and media coverage.
When employers hire people to work, they do so in a way so that the business can profit. If they hire too many people, they'll start to lose money. We can't just give people jobs if they aren't going to profit, because it's inefficient and counter productive. Lets suppose a restaurant needs 2 dishwashers for maximum efficiency. If the restaurant hires a 3rd dishwasher, they'll lose money on the 3rd worker while efficiency barely improves or actually goes down!
It's not as easy as simply creating more jobs. The jobs that are created must be efficient and benefit both the employer and customers. If the solution was merely as simple as creating more jobs, then we could hire every last poor person to take a shovel and dig a hole, fill it up, then dig the hole again, repeating the process.
Given that many of the poor are jobless because they don't have the education qualifications to get higher forms of employment, then it can be often said to be the fault of people themselves.
A lot of people aren't educated enough to find jobs because the number of people with college degrees is massively inflated.
Thats a very unfair way of looking at it. Iv also never understood rgis human fascination that everyone must work. Its not possible anyway. You say they dont have the education but there are plenty with the education that still cannot get a job. The jobs are going faster than they are created. We dont actually have enough jobs! So how are these educated people meant to find work? While I agree fully that it puts you in a better circumstance and so education is a key part of someone doing well in life, its no guarantee and so its quite unfair to say its the fault of the uneducated when the educated cant find jobs either.
I don't know if Nicho was suggesting it is their fault for being undereducated, but you do bring up some interesting points. A lot of people with college degrees can't even find jobs related to their field, so they have to settle for jobs that any high school graduate can learn. This leaves less jobs for high school graduates since employers tend to hire college graduates over high school graduates, even if high school graduates are capable of learning what they need to know on the job.
The problem isn't that there isn't enough education, it's that there's TOO MUCH education. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against education per se, I'm just against the current system.
Understand, education is NOT the only way to acquire knowledge. Education is expensive and time consuming, and the fact that so many people believe everyone should have access to free education creates this system where education is required just to have a CHANCE at making a good living. Education sounds great, but the fact it's becoming easier to obtain an education means it's harder to get a job without an education.
Our current college system is a scam, but I won't get into it right now.
The rich are getting higher incomes (becoming richer). The poor however in most cases maintain the same income while simultaneously having to deal with rising costs of living. So in this sense the rich do get richer while the poor do get poorer.
The situation we're in right now with corporatism is definitely a problem, so keep in mind that I'm not defending the current situation we're in, I'm merely bringing up some points that should be considered when looking at this issue.
When the income of the rich goes up, and the income of the poor goes down, are the poor really becoming poorer? Not necisarily. If money has more purchasing power, then the poor may actually be becoming richer despite the lower income!
Of course, you stated that living conditions are becoming more expensive, but as I said, I'm not defending the current system, I'm merely bringing up a point that should be taken into consideration.
Aye thats very true. One of my brothers main qualms is that the wages are not actually going up with the cost of living meaning life is more expensive for the basic needs.
This is, in many ways, true. Many people look at this situation and they assume that higher wage rates will solve the problem. However, higher wage rates will merely inflate prices, so raising wage rates won't fix the problem (which is why min. wage laws don't really do anything since inflation always catches back up).
if everybody paid the taxes, there would be no need to make them higher or tax the rich more and stuff like that.
Well, taxation doesn't work because the government is incompetent.
We all need to pay taxes to support our Governments but sometimes it is too much for some families to cope, believe me the rich try hard but I believe the only way through these difficult times is to work together. I don't just mean the rich handing out millions to the poor but starting up businesses to create more jobs and other schemes to help those in desperate need out of poverty.
As I said earlier, jobs must be efficient. Government jobs are rarely, if ever, efficient. If created jobs aren't profitable, then you may as well hire people to dig and fill holes all day.
The government should NEVER, EVER, create jobs for the purpose of creating jobs. I can't think of ANY exceptions. If the government creates jobs, it should be for the purpose of providing goods and services that have a high demand, but a non-existent market. Even then, the government should hire as few workers as possible while creating as high an efficiency as possible. This means the government should be careful not to hire too few people, but it also means they should be careful not to hire too many people.
Again, government should (arguably) hire people to provide goods and services that are in high-demand, but are not provided due to a nearly non-existent market for those goods and services. Never should the government create jobs for the sake of increasing employment.
In the current system. Of course we can survive without the tax system but we do need other ways of distributing resources in a wise and logical way.
*cough*freemarket*cough*
I don't really want to get too into it right now, but I believe the only system that could exist without taxation is a free market system.
I also have a friend who is in the same position she was. He is strugling to find ANY job, nevermind one that uses his Masters Degree. I think that education has more knock on effect than just getting a good job and can open someones mind to many possibilities and also many avenues of survival. Sadly some of the most indocrinated people are also the most educated. By indocrinated I mean people who fight to keep the status quo even tho it clearly does not benefit everyone nor does it benefit the human race in the future either.
If I understand what you said correctly, then I agree. Education is inefficient and the reason why these hellholds aren't going out of business is because every high school graduate feels they must go to college, and it really doesn't help when the government loans so much money to students who show know signs of responsibility. This generally results in many students going to schools only to drop out. The schools continue to profit. But, again, I won't get too much into the horrible college system we have in place.
give a example plz. i wouldn't know what to do whitout all the stuff the government pays for. like roads and transport systems you know. sure a company can do that but who is going to for it? no1 but the rich can pay for it and they wont do it because rich people did not get rich whit spending their money for free stuff.
Who says the rich would have to provide goods and services for free, or that people won't willingly pay for these goods and services? You can make arguments as to why the government should provide certain goods and services, but be careful backing it up on the grounds that you can't imagine it happening without the government.
There's an joke about Soviet Russia. Two women are standing in long line, waiting to get bread. One woman says to the other, "I'm so tired of standing in line for hours, just so that I can eat!" The other woman replies, "Be grateful comrade, I hear that over in America, the government doesn't even provide bread for their people!"
I mean working in mundane needless jobs. I thought machines were meant to save us from work? They could really. Again this is idealism but also absolutly true. People dont actually need to sit in an office and sort out life insurance, do they? This does not make the world work. What it does do is keep the current system ticking over. A system that has failed a huge part of the worlds population.
Though it may not be impossible, I think it's highly improbably, that machines would completely rule out all human labor.
I would hate it if machines were to take over our jobs. We would lose meaning to life, there would be no need to undertake education since machines will take care of us.
I disagree. I believe a system where machines provided everything humans needed would not rob humans of their will to educate themselves, or find meaning in their life. Many people would find hobbies, and those who enjoyed working with their hands would surely be able to find stuff they can do. Of course, I don't believe this kind of society will ever exist. I believe there will always be a need for people when it comes to machines.
Even doctors are reputed to be possible victims, when machines diagnose much more efficiently than them.
This could result in less job openings for doctors, but I personally don't think so. Even if the result did turn out to be true, it wouldn't be a bad thing. With machines diagnosing patients, doctors will be able to focus more on other matters. It would create efficiency, and either more jobs will open up for doctors due to the efficiency, or there will be more jobs in other fields such as engineering, computer science. and other medical related sciences.
In a system with no money there would be no "aying" for things like roads.
we could go back in time befor money and we have trading. and i sure prefer money over trading items. trading only is a biger ***** then money is =P
ow and plz. come whit ideas instead of only saying what you think is bad. if it is all so bad then how would you do it?
I believe the only system that could exist without taxation is a free market system.
my questions still stands. who is going to pay for the roads?
There's an joke about Soviet Russia.
the joke is out-dated and not that funny either.
I disagree. I believe a system where machines provided everything humans needed would not rob humans of their will to educate themselves, or find meaning in their life. Many people would find hobbies, and those who enjoyed working with their hands would surely be able to find stuff they can do. Of course, I don't believe this kind of society will ever exist. I believe there will always be a need for people when it comes to machines.
well there is the example in australia (not because of machine tho) where the native people get free money from the government because they are "cultural heritage" these people stoped doing anything and only went drinking alcohol. it wasn't looking prety to be short.
On the point that the rich are the job creators, this was an interesting video on that subject.
Inequality and Job Creators Nick Hanauer(Rejected TED talk)
And this is coming from a "job creator".
On the point that the rich are the job creators, this was an interesting video on that subject.
Inequality and Job Creators Nick Hanauer(Rejected TED talk)
And this is coming from a "job creator".
He's pretty much telling us that employers don't keep their employees in business, customers do. This is true, but the employers are still the ones granting these people the opportunity to work.
Let's suppose a man knows how to give people tattoos but he doesn't know how to run a business, therefore he can't be self employed. If I knew how to ran a business, I could hire this man. This is what it means to "create a job". What the man in the video is saying is that I'm not creating the job for this man, but it's the customers who keep us in business who are creating the job. This is just not true, they're keeping us in business.
I believe the issue with the video is that the man is taking something such as job creation, and he's giving it his own meaning. To him, job creation isn't about providing resources for employees to use so that they may provide other goods and services, but rather, job creation is about those who keep others in business.
He then states that we should be flooded with jobs because the rich aren't taxed all that much. It's a fair argument, there is correlation between the two, but it's not sound. He doesn't really explain why the correlation exists. I can't really expect him to go into detail since he's giving a short presentation, but the explanation is still lacking none the less.
He then shows a graph and states that, "If the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000, not $50,000." Maybe I just need someone to explain the graph to me, because it makes absolutely no sense. What does the graph have to do with his claim? Either I'm not getting it, or he just flashed us a graph that has nothing to do with the claim he just made.
I don't know what the point of the chart is.
He then goes on to say that people who call themselves job creators are perceiving themselves as divine creators. But then he goes on to state that the rich should be taxed so that the money could be reinvested into programs that benefit the middle class. What a raging hypocrite! He's condemning the rich for calling themselves job creators, stating that the rich don't create jobs. Yet he then suggests the money be taken from the rich and put into investments, which is a way in which JOBS ARE CREATED.
Also, this guy isn't a capitalist. He says he is, but then he talks about how the rich should be taxed so the government can reinvest that money to stimulate the economy. There are two ways in which the government can invest that money. They can either invest in government programs (socialism), or private companies (corporatism).
Early on in the video, he explains that there's this common misconception that the rich spend all their money. He explains that the rich end up keeping most of their money instead of spending it, unlike the middle class and poor. This is straight up WRONG. The money that the rich keep to themselves is put into the bank. The money that is kept in the bank is then used in INVESTMENTS. Nick is telling us that the government should tax that money and invest it to help the middle class, but the bank is already doing just that!
The video is asinine.
Let's suppose a man knows how to give people tattoos but he doesn't know how to run a business, therefore he can't be self employed. If I knew how to ran a business, I could hire this man. This is what it means to "create a job". What the man in the video is saying is that I'm not creating the job for this man, but it's the customers who keep us in business who are creating the job. This is just not true, they're keeping us in business.
I think what the guy is trying to get at is that if you don't have customers (those spending money) then you aren't going to give that tattoo man a job. The proposition is to get the customer on fanatically stable ground so that they can spend money on your service, which in turn prompts you to hire tattoo man to do his job.
By just putting you on financially stable ground to give tattoo man his job you are left with no reason to hire him as the customers are left financially insecure.
In short make the middle class (the customers/spenders ) financially secure = more people spending = employers hiring more people to do a job = more financially secure middle class and so on.
The other way around as we have been viewing it is make the employers more financially secure = the employers hiring more people = more financially secure middle class = more people spending to put into the system. And he is saying this isn't going to work as it leave no motivation in the first place for the employer to hire people, as that is simply a reaction to more people spending. Which you don't get unless you first start with those who are going to spend the money to be more financially secure.
Also, this guy isn't a capitalist. He says he is, but then he talks about how the rich should be taxed so the government can reinvest that money to stimulate the economy.
I fail to see how that doesn't make him a capitalist. What I'm finding on the guy would seem to indicate that he is a entrepreneur and capitalist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Hanauer
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2008/03/10/focus1.html?jst=s_cn_hl
For the first time ever we would be free to find meaning in their lives instead of devoting it to needless services that only exist because of money. I mean, cmon, life insurance. What a joke! I know why, in this system, we have life insurance and pensions but they are outdated and actually hurt many people. Look at what happened to all the people that poured pension money into companies that went bust!
It's not the pension system that is flawed, but the corrupt people who administer them who are. Pension systems are fine in principle, and to attack them as detrimental is side stepping the main issue of greed and corruption.
And no, I don't forsee machines taking over completely as a good thing. It is utterly unrealistic to imagine that people will use their time for noble purposes such as ''understanding the universe''. Look at what we use our free time for now; more likely than not, without work to keep us occupied, we will evolve into hedonistic creatures seeking pleasure.
Whenever those resources become scarce, the prices will be ridiculously high, which will prevent the resources from being used up.
Im more worried about the resources becoming scarce in the first place and I dont see any wisdom in waiting for this situation to come about. Its like eating all the food in the house even tho you know you cannot get any more.
We can't just give people jobs if they aren't going to profit
Agreed, I dont think jobs are the answer.
The problem isn't that there isn't enough education, it's that there's TOO MUCH education. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against education per se, I'm just against the current system.
Totally. We are educating people in the pretense that they will find a job if they do well in school/college/uni.
If money has more purchasing power, then the poor may actually be becoming richer despite the lower income!
Of course, you stated that living conditions are becoming more expensive, but as I said, I'm not defending the current system, I'm merely bringing up a point that should be taken into consideration.
And this is what our system is meant to do but as we see its plainly not. I promise that if our current system worked, Id be all for it.
the government is incompetent.
Well put
I don't really want to get too into it right now, but I believe the only system that could exist without taxation is a free market system.
I admit I have never really looked into the free market concept.
Education is inefficient and the reason why these hellholds aren't going out of business is because every high school graduate feels they must go to college, and it really doesn't help when the government loans so much money to students who show know signs of responsibility. This generally results in many students going to schools only to drop out. The schools continue to profit. But, again, I won't get too much into the horrible college system we have in place.
Well thats half of what I meant. One aspect of indoctination into a western system is the belief that we can just use up our resources and they will always be there. An educated person who can argue that this is ok is a dangerous person indeed. Noam Chomsky calls it the responsibility of intellectuals. They should be seeking out the worlds problems and solving them, not blindly walking into a system that gives them a standard of life they believe they deserve because of a level of education (and a relative one at that, because the education standard is always on the up). The better the education a person has, the more they think they deserve a higher living standard. I know not all people think like this, but a vast majority do which includes those less educated. Its the carrot and the stick which has been proven that people work less the bigger the carrot (unless they are driven or genius).
I know some people will disagree with me here and say that they worked harder so they deserve more and I cant really fault that there should be perks for hard work, it just has not turned out this way. These perks have turned into a total waste of manpower and resources i.e. a factory in china making cheap TV screens that have planned obsolescence.
Pension systems are fine in principle
Its only fine in principle but the reality is that it doesnt work. Many people lost out because of corruption and greed. Communism is fine in principle but sadly, it doesnt work because of corruption and greed. Democracy is fine in principle, but it failed due to corruption and greed.
The point Im making is not to directly attack pensions but to attack the very idea that we have a system of pensions in the first place. The human race doesnt need pensions or life insurance to survive.
Look at what we use our free time for now; more likely than not, without work to keep us occupied, we will evolve into hedonistic creatures seeking pleasure.
Any hedonism I have right now is under the threat that tommorow I may be forced to work in a mundane, souless job.
It is utterly unrealistic to imagine that people will use their time for noble purposes such as ''understanding the universe''
I find it more unrealistic that we allow the current system of corruption and greed to continue. Im not joking when I say we are allowing psychopaths to run our world who have proven time and time again that they dont care. Im really worried that this exact attitude is filtering down to the masses.
The point Im making is not to directly attack pensions but to attack the very idea that we have a system of pensions in the first place. The human race doesnt need pensions or life insurance to survive.
They do now, unless people are willing/capable in working until they die. Or like some countries, adopt compulsory savings schemes.
Any hedonism I have right now is under the threat that tommorow I may be forced to work in a mundane, souless job.
Which you do to earn your keep, because nothing is free. Those machines who will ''work'' for you will be owned by their owners, most likely rich people.
I find it more unrealistic that we allow the current system of corruption and greed to continue. Im not joking when I say we are allowing psychopaths to run our world who have proven time and time again that they dont care. Im really worried that this exact attitude is filtering down to the masses.
Unrealistic is the wrong choice of words; unrealistic means it won't happen. Unacceptable would be a better choice, though I disagree. It is unfair to label all leaders psychopaths; the world running and not collapsing into a quagmire shows that the leadership in place still can make it.
They do now, unless people are willing/capable in working until they die.
Very true. Again, only in our current system tho.
(I bet your sick of me saying that)
Which you do to earn your keep, because nothing is free. Those machines who will ''work'' for you will be owned by their owners, most likely rich people.
GAH! money money money. I think money stands in our way more than any obstacle we have ever faced.
Unrealistic is the wrong choice of words; unrealistic means it won't happen. Unacceptable would be a better choice,
Fully agreed.
though I disagree.
Well I disagree with your disagreement
the world running and not collapsing into a quagmire shows that the leadership in place still can make it.
I just dont see us continuing in this world situation for many more generations. The real leaders have quite the challenge on their hands. I have faith in humanity, no matter my personal dispair with unacceptable situations that we are in (by "we" I mean the collective human race).
GAH! money money money. I think money stands in our way more than any obstacle we have ever faced.
So you would favour barter trade? Money is merely representative of the struggle for scarce resources, and there is nothing we can do to change that. We have infinite wants, and limited wants; all economics is based on that vital polemic.
I just dont see us continuing in this world situation for many more generations. The real leaders have quite the challenge on their hands. I have faith in humanity, no matter my personal dispair with unacceptable situations that we are in (by "we" I mean the collective human race).
If you think about it, past systems have been more unequal. Think about the feudal system for one. We have made great strides since then, and to dismiss the world in a misanthropic sigh is hasty. We have always had corruption in history, yet we have NGOs, social movements, international organizations which provide, at the very least a semblance of reigning in excess.
I think what the guy is trying to get at is that if you don't have customers (those spending money) then you aren't going to give that tattoo man a job. The proposition is to get the customer on fanatically stable ground so that they can spend money on your service, which in turn prompts you to hire tattoo man to do his job.
By just putting you on financially stable ground to give tattoo man his job you are left with no reason to hire him as the customers are left financially insecure.
In short make the middle class (the customers/spenders ) financially secure = more people spending = employers hiring more people to do a job = more financially secure middle class and so on.
Finding ways to give money to the middle class artificially creates a higher demand, which will result in rising prices. It results in inflation.
It would be nothing more than a temporary fix. It would result in inflation, and in the long run, result in more problems.
I fail to see how that doesn't make him a capitalist. What I'm finding on the guy would seem to indicate that he is a entrepreneur and capitalist.
A capitalist believes in a free-market. Taxing the rich so that the government can stimulate the economy is not a free-market. That's corporatism.
I admit I have never really looked into the free market concept.
How do we determine how resources should be used? How do we know that we should use this much oil for this purpose, and this much oil for this other purpose? We determine the use of resources by catering to the demands of the people. But how do we know what's in high demand? How do we know what the people want, or what they need? We can try to reallocate resources so everyone has what they need and want, but this means someone is assuming they know what is better for the individual than the individual themselves, and what they provide may not cater to many individuals needs and wants.
The only way to successfully cater to a person's needs and wants is to allow them to buy whatever they can afford. The only goods and services this person won't be able to have are those that are out of his price range. Most needs and wants are quite affordable, albeit, there are often compromises. I want that mammoth ivory chess set, but I'll settle for a plastic set for now and buy me a nice wooden set in the future.
So, why would we need the free-market to exist in a taxless society? There's no other way in which people can obtain their own needs and wants. Every other system requires taxation to work.
So you would favour barter trade? Money is merely representative of the struggle for scarce resources, and there is nothing we can do to change that. We have infinite wants, and limited wants; all economics is based on that vital polemic.
I think this statement sums up the importance of money very nicely.
So you would favour barter trade? Money is merely representative of the struggle for scarce resources, and there is nothing we can do to change that. We have infinite wants, and limited wants; all economics is based on that vital polemic.
There is no way I want to go back to the barter system. Its not the idea of money that I dislike. My problem is with the way it is enforced which causes people to want it rather than want what it can achieve. I also dont believe humans have infinite wants either but many have been manipulated into thinking this. Do you know Edward Bernays? He was an absolute god at convincing the masses of what they want. What people really want is not to worry about living the next day.
If you think about it, past systems have been more unequal. Think about the feudal system for one. We have made great strides since then, and to dismiss the world in a misanthropic sigh is hasty.
I fully agree with this and Im glad we are no longer in the fudal system. I have high expectations of the human race and now that we have the tools to end a huge amount of suffering, a suffering which is also now publicly known to anyone with a computer or TV, I expect us to advance our circumstances to have no people in poverty. At all. Not one. This is not a big thing to expect because we have the ability and the tools. Instead our leaders play war games and word games while they make money. Its hard not to feel Misanthropic really (I had to look that one up).
Thread is locked!