|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted October 30, 2008 01:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Education isn't money. I have no problem with providing people with an education; I just don't want to give them actual money. There's a difference.
No there's not. If you have no problem providing people with education, which is something you GIVE for FREE, then you should have no problem in giving them other things for FREE. Nothing is free in a capitalist system. If you give them free education it's technically (in capitalist system) like giving them money for free, and then using that for education.
But of course this was only one example.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2008 01:50 PM |
|
|
The more productive doctors are the more healthy people are. Take a dentist. The more productive he would be (i.e. the better a doctor he is) the longer his work, his fillings and so on, would be ok, so the less visits should be necessary - and the less money he will earn.
A second thing is the use of equipment and drugs. You have trust in the docs that if they use whatever equiptment or prescribe a drug that this is besically the best treatment FOR THE BUCK! Sounds ridiculous, right?
Ok, example: You have a pretty heavy cold and feel like snow. You shuffle to a doc. The doc prescribes you something. You pay the doc and you pay the something. However, there is a lot of "something". He may prescribe you inhaling some vapor with a towel over hot water, costing nothing with your cold staying another heavy 3 days and then another 5 until it's over. He may prescribe you some feel-betters and some light stuff, costing a couple of bucks for 1 heavy and two medium heavy days plus 4 days until over, or he
So what is best? Will he ask you?
Nah, he will prescribe you the expensive stuff and after 2 weeks the side effects of that stuff will lead to a skin problem or something else, leading you back in. 
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2008 09:40 PM |
|
|
5 days.
If McCain wins then I will suicide even though I live in another continent (europe).
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2008 09:46 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
If you give them free education it's technically (in capitalist system) like giving them money for free, and then using that for education
No, it's not. Say you take away that money from somebody, and give a slightly lesser amount (because of bureaucratic waste) to somebody else. That person will spend that money, but it won't do any good as a whole. First, the poor person, who is generally less productive, is rewarded for lack of productivity, while the generally more productive rich person is punished. Second, even if our goal was to make the poor person richer, some of that money was simply wasted in bureaucratic hands, so the idea that "making the middle class stronger" (what is the middle class, anyway?) doesn't really work. Third, education generates a significantly more sizable return than consumer spending does. Education spending, if not completely mangled, ultimately generates more benefits than losses, because the return on it is higher. Not so for just cash.
JJ:
Insurance companies regulate cost, to a certain extent, making doctors compete, so that doesn't happen so much. Plus, if a person just keeps returning to the doctor all the time, that could have a toll on that doctor's reputation and result in less patients.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 30, 2008 09:56 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 21:57, 30 Oct 2008.
|
Quote:
No, it's not. Say you take away that money from somebody, and give a slightly lesser amount (because of bureaucratic waste) to somebody else. That person will spend that money, but it won't do any good as a whole. First, the poor person, who is generally less productive, is rewarded for lack of productivity, while the generally more productive rich person is punished.
That is because you think like that. Why is the rich person richer? Because he had better opportunities. Why should this be a factor? Opportunities aren't fair at all.
Besides, this is what you are doing when you give free education. You can't possibly believe that something is free. By who do the teachers get paid? By parents? That's not free education. By taxes? That's not free education, not in a system where "you are rewarded for your work, but pay taxes anyway for something you might not want". Are they punished in this case? You seem to think so. What about the books? Do they appear out of thin air? The point is, it's not FREE. In a full capitalist system, if they can charge for air, they would do so. 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2008 10:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why is the rich person richer? Because he had better opportunities. Why should this be a factor? Opportunities aren't fair at all.
That's really a slippery slope. "Why do people without AIDS have so much better lives, on average, than people with AIDS? We should redistribute health so that everyone would have some kind of minor disease!" And we try to make children's opportunities as equal as it is feasible to do so. We have public education, and so on. Of course, we can't control the fact that kids with educated parents are more likely to go far; what, should we redistribute parents? And kids who live in rich areas go to school with other kids of educated people, should these children be forced to go to a faraway school?
If you want to help, bring the poor up, yes, but not by bringing the rich down.
Quote:
By who do the teachers get paid? By parents? That's not free education. By taxes? That's not free education, not in a system where "you are rewarded for your work, but pay taxes anyway for something you might not want". Are they punished in this case? You seem to think so.
That's why I'm not a blind ideologue. Utilitarianism is a wonderful thing. Yes, public education is not 100% capitalist. So? I'm no anarcho-capitalist. I take what I think is best from every system, and combine it. It just so happens that I take more from capitalism than from socialism.
Quote:
In a full capitalist system, if they can charge for air, they would do so.
Only if they owned the air. I'd like to see a feasible way to privatize the atmosphere. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 30, 2008 10:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That's really a slippery slope. "Why do people without AIDS have so much better lives, on average, than people with AIDS? We should redistribute health so that everyone would have some kind of minor disease!" And we try to make children's opportunities as equal as it is feasible to do so. We have public education, and so on. Of course, we can't control the fact that kids with educated parents are more likely to go far; what, should we redistribute parents? And kids who live in rich areas go to school with other kids of educated people, should these children be forced to go to a faraway school?
If you want to help, bring the poor up, yes, but not by bringing the rich down.
Thanks for demonstrating half of my point with your example. You see, when you treat the infected ones (diseased), which in this analogy represents "poor", and you DON'T treat the non-infected ones (rich), then the "poor" get paid for nothing, and this still is not convenient for you. You see, your example falls apart from pure capitalism, you'd better find another one
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
posted October 31, 2008 12:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
5 days.
If McCain wins then I will suicide even though I live in another continent (europe).
And who says hope is dead? 
|
|
nocaplato
Adventuring Hero
Lover of Ancient Philosophy
|
|
posted October 31, 2008 01:09 AM |
|
|
See, I just don't believe this is true:
Quote:
That person will spend that money, but it won't do any good as a whole. First, the poor person, who is generally less productive, is rewarded for lack of productivity, while the generally more productive rich person is punished.
The idea suggested is that somehow poor people are to blame for being poor. That's not really the way it works. Granted, America is the 'Land of Opportunity' but let's be realistic. If you start with more, you'll likely end with more.
Let's take a 'typical' scenario (I use quotes because it's too hard to say this one case is normal, or average. On the other hand, as a teacher in public school, I've seen at close range what parents are like and what happens to families of both poor and rich kids).
I've got a student, let's call him Alex. His mom comes from a poor neighborhood and somewhere along the line she made a mistake, had a kid too young, put some a-hole's priorities in front of hers and whammo, takes a few years to figure it out. Now, kid at 4, she's fed up with the jerk, she's 23 and on her own. They were never married, so no alimony and the dead beat is gone with little or no trace, rarely coming back into her life. She's able to get a little assistance, even qualifies for a special program that starts her kid in preschool early to give him a leg up. This is perfect because it lets her get out into the workforce for the first time since she was a highschool senior. She starts to work, struggles, lets say she even makes it to management in the local Target or something.
Now, 5 years later, and she has spent most of those years working her a$$ off keeping a roof over their heads, having a running vehicle and making sure Alex has everything he needs. Problem is, the more she works, the less Alex has of her. All this time she's been working, Alex comes home from school and is basically on his own (except for the neighbors in her apartment building). She makes sure he's looked after as much as she can, cobbling together a patchwork care system of her friends, neighbors, her cousin and sister when they're around, but it's not consistent, and each of them has their own issues. Alex isn't a priority for anyone but mom, and mom has to work the late shift four nights of the week.
Alex is a bright kid, attractive and charming. He has potential, but there are too many distractions around. The TV, computers, cell phones, too many ways to stay quiet and out of the way for all those caretakers, too easy for him to game, "I can't do that page till mom gets home, she always helps me", "this one isn't due till Friday" "Mr. P is gonna go over this at recess with us" and a thousand more ways he can slip through the cracks, doing what he wants while all those neighbors, friends and relatives shrug their shoulders. Mom knows all this is happening, but she can't be there to hold him accountable and Alex is bright and charming enough to get what he wants no matter how much mom lays down the law.
It's not Alex's fault either. He's been left to raise himself and like all of us wants the easy gratification, even more true of children. He knows what he 'should' do, but it's too hard when he's faced with the work to have the discipine to get it done. Or the focus, for that matter, we're talking about a 9 year old boy. He'll feel guilty when it's the next day and he hasn't done the work, but that'll pass. It'll be the furthest thing from his mind when he's at home later playing Rainbow Six on the PS3 his neighbor friend has.
This will go on for a long time and a kid with great potential will slowly become the kid who once had great potential. It's not because mom hasn't worked herself to the bone, or that she hasn't cared. It's that, in order to survive, she has to work that much. Alex, with no father and only a mother for a role model, will likely be faced with similar circumstances. Left alone, charming and attractive, always capable of beguiling his way into and out of situations, he's likely to have plenty of opportunity to be alone with girls at his house. If he learns something from his mother's work ethic, he'll be a provider, but either emotionally distant or emotionally co-dependent. He won't have the grades to make it to a good school, but he will be willing to work himself to death for someone else, even if it's a crap job.
Compare that to someone who starts with money. Even a person in the 4th quintile. They make enough money because of their work to be around, they likely have medical insurance to cover emergency needs, they make the school conferences and likely even volunteer in the classroom. They become well acquainted with the staff at the school and have the time to advocate for their kids, demanding curriculum and teachers that suit their kids. Not only that, but they know the system because they were able to succeed in it themselves. They know they can get in to see the principal and demand this or that teacher, demand help for their kids, whereas the poor folks have probably never even thought about it. To them, meeting the principal is a reason to fear something their kid has done, not to grind an axe. There's no mismatch of caretakers for a rich kid, no lack of food or latch key kid making his own lunch or dinner when he gets home. Someone's there making home cooked meals already, or at the least there's money around so the kid can get food from a restaurant.
I'm not saying that it's impossible for Alex to succeed. But he's got a strike or two against him from the start.
....................................................
Aside from all that, I can tell you from personal experience that poor families work just as hard, sometimes harder, than upper income families. And, if an upper income family works more it's not out of necessity, but out of choice. They actually like the work their doing, some may even think of it as a refuge. The poor family who works two or three jobs doesn't do it because it's a kick to pump gas or clean dishes, but because that extra job makes the difference between making the electric bill or not this month, putting food on the table this month or something else.
It's not a matter of harder, or even better work. Incomes are drifting apart. When I was a kid the minimum wage was 4.75, that's dating me a bit, but it's not much later than the CBO started keeping records. In that time the high end of the scale has tripled their average income, yet the low end has only increased, in the state of California, to 7.25 an hour. That's not 300 percent, but 50. The gap between the poor and the rich is increasing, and it's increasing at an alarming rate. That fact is immutable, undeniable. It's not because poor people are lazy either, trust me, I see too many families trying to make it work. With rare exception my smartest kids come from well to do families, while my weakest come from poor families. That has nothing to do with genetics.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 31, 2008 01:12 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 01:38, 31 Oct 2008.
|
@TheDeath
Quote:
That is because you think like that. Why is the rich person richer? Because he had better opportunities.
Whoa! Hold it! I don't agree with that at all. It might be true in some, even many, circumstances, that some rich people are rich because their parents were rich. But to paint with such a broad stroke as to say that all rich people are rich because they "had better opportunities" (whatever that means), well, sorry - I don't believe that for one second.
There are a lot of rich people out there that are rich because they created their own opportunities by working like dogs, thinking out side the box, taking risks, and making sacrifices when they needed to. I don't think it's any more fair to broadly paint the wealthy as entitled, snotty, undeserving people who were handed everything on a platter any more than it's fair to paint the poor as lazy, unmotivated whining ingrates who just want to have everything handed to them on a platter.
@nocaplato
Yeah that sucks for Alex and his mom. But you know what? Alex's mom made a choice. Now she reaps the consequences. I feel sorry for her situation, but she created the situation. It's not anyone else's duty to correct it.
As for Alex: yeah, he was dealt a bad hand. That sucks. But there are always people who are dealt even WORSE hands. Alex has it pretty good compared to the little girl who gets diagnosed with retinoblastoma when she's two, goes in and out of chemo for a few years until her parents have to bury her before her fifth birthday. Where's the fairness in that? And that little girl has it pretty good compared to the little newborn boy who wasn't wanted and was abandoned in the cold and died before he was four days old. That sucks even more. And what about the boy with trisomy 18 who is dead barely after he emerges from the womb? Even worse for him.
Point is, we can't all be born to billionaires and grow up to be rock-stars. It'd be nice if we could. But it's certainly not the government's job to "even the tables" by forcibly punishing wealthy people (just like it's not the government's job to impose restrictions on personal lifestyles, either). It's certainly nice when wealthy people give to help out less fortunate people, but I sorely disagree with the notion of "compulsory charity".
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
nocaplato
Adventuring Hero
Lover of Ancient Philosophy
|
|
posted October 31, 2008 01:26 AM |
|
|
Generalities are horribly unfair, however, let's face it, if you start with money, it's easier to stay in money.
Rich Poor
Health Coverage Check Do you take Medical? No?
Nutrition Check Is Top Ramen and PB&J nutrition?
Good Schools Check If you're lucky
Parents around Check... mostly No or yes, but checked out
Parents married Iffy Since they were 17, yup
Have reliable car? Check, three times The bus and a working bicycle
Legal Problems? Tax evasion? My brother stole a lawnmower
Know the system? Yep, friends in high places What does that mean?
I don't want to oversimplify things here, but it's hard to argue that those who start with money don't have a massive head start.
|
|
nocaplato
Adventuring Hero
Lover of Ancient Philosophy
|
|
posted October 31, 2008 02:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Point is, we can't all be born to billionaires and grow up to be rock-stars. It'd be nice if we could. But it's certainly not the government's job to "even the tables" by forcibly punishing wealthy people (just like it's not the government's job to impose restrictions on personal lifestyles, either). It's certainly nice when wealthy people give to help out less fortunate people, but I sorely disagree with the notion of "compulsory charity"
I'm not talking about the difference between a billionaire and a rare kid and his mom, I'm talking about something much more common.
Do you know that of those below the poverty level, 2 of 3 are single women and their kids? This isn't an isolated case, though I certainly had a single case in mind when I offered 'Alex'. We're talking about the balance of poor folks. And I'm not talking about the rare ultra rich. The comparison is actually with someone earning around 100,000 a year. I don't advocate taking a single dime away from that kind of earner. I'm only pointing out that the poor DO start with a handicap not suffered by the rich.
As for Alex's mom, who hasn't made a mistake in their 18-25 year range. I made plenty, enough that it's a wonder I made it out alive. Should we think less of her because she made a mistake, or should we simply stop blaming her for the mistake she made when she was a kid?
As for 'evening the tables' I think the government shouldn't necessarily even the tables, but I think a rational tax program isn't out of the question. Nor do I think it's unreasonable to limit the amount of pay raises the top end give themselves. I know that's a rather liberal position, but given the amazing pay gap between the highest end and everyone else, something could be done. I'm talking about regulation here. If CEOs and top end execs are worth so much because of what they make, they shouldn't object to something akin to a commission on company profits. And I'm talking about the cooked books of companies like Enron.
That's where this all becomes really complicated. The guys who make the most are the ones who are actually in control of the money and the books. How the 'h-e-double hockey sticks' can you actually prevent them from giving themselves raises, or cooking the books with subtle accounting methods?
Leaving all that aside, I firmly believe that the top end simply get paid too much. We are pushing the salary gap apart, thinning out the middle and making an elitist system where you have the guys in charge lording it over the people who actually create the product. In the end that approach is going to kill the dream America is supposed to be about. You know, that place where the average person is supposed to be able to 'make it' through hard work.
Economics is not my strongest suit, but I understand enough about it to recognize that the owner isn't necessarily worth millions of dollars a year only because of his or her title. I believe the salary comes with the title these days, rather than with performance. That strikes me as horribly un-American.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2008 02:21 AM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
You see, when you treat the infected ones (diseased), which in this analogy represents "poor", and you DON'T treat the non-infected ones (rich), then the "poor" get paid for nothing, and this still is not convenient for you.
This just shows that you misunderstood my analogy. In my analogy, the only way to treat the sick is by making the healthy sicker. Perhaps a slightly better analogy would be more illustrative.
Let us say that 50% of the population has a medical condition that makes them have a permanent lack of blood. Is it fair to forcibly take blood from the 50% with normal blood and give it to the people who lack blood?
nocaplato:
In addition to what Corribus said, I would also add that it's unfair to the rich kid to make his situation worse.
Quote:
Aside from all that, I can tell you from personal experience that poor families work just as hard, sometimes harder, than upper income families.
Working hard is not the whole thing; sometimes "working smart" is more important. An experienced computer engineer or molecular biologist is more productive in one hour of doing regular work than a janitor is cleaning up a huge building for a whole day. The question is not effort, but productivity. Perhaps it's best to express this mathematically:
money = productivity*effort*time
Quote:
And, if an upper income family works more it's not out of necessity, but out of choice. They actually like the work their doing, some may even think of it as a refuge.
For this statement to be even remotely credible, you have to define what "rich" means, income-wise.
Quote:
In that time the high end of the scale has tripled their average income, yet the low end has only increased, in the state of California, to 7.25 an hour. That's not 300 percent, but 50.
Are they both getting paid more than they were? Yes? Then what's the problem? The salaries of college graduates are increasing at a faster rate than those of low-end workers. What's the problem with that?
Quote:
It's not because poor people are lazy either, trust me, I see too many families trying to make it work.
No, what happens is, "I had a kid at 16, and got into drugs, and never married, but now I want to succeed and be on even ground with everybody else! Government, please come save me!" I have no sympathy for such people. By the age of 16, they should have already have had contacts with lifestyles different from that of their parent(s). They should see that others are doing better, and follow their example.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 31, 2008 03:55 AM |
|
|
@nocaplato
Quote:
As for Alex's mom, who hasn't made a mistake in their 18-25 year range. I made plenty, enough that it's a wonder I made it out alive. Should we think less of her because she made a mistake, or should we simply stop blaming her for the mistake she made when she was a kid?
I've made mistakes. Though, I wasn't stupid enough to have a kid when I was 18. And what mistakes I've made I've taken responsibility for and accepted the consequences like an adult. I certainly haven't expected other people to help me out of the holes I dug for myself.
In any case, I don't think less of her, and it's a problem that you seem to equate my feeling that a person should take responsibility for their actions as some sort of disdain. And really, she IS to blame for having a child when she was 18. If you don't think so, perhaps you could tell us all who is to blame for her choices? Sometimes we make mistakes that we pay for the rest of our lives. Sometimes we make mistakes that we pay for WITH our lives.
Again, my feelings have nothing to do with antagonism for her, her choices or her situation, but the belief that we reap what we sow. She made a bad choice and she has to deal with it, probably for the rest of her life.
As for the rest of the taxing stuff, well, I'm not really a fan of raising taxes in the first place, but my basic philosophy is that if you ARE going to raise taxes, that money should be put back into programs that benefit everybody in society equally. I don't disagree that there is a very wide disparity in wages for jobs that essentially require the same skill and work. Obviously there is a bizarre occupation-valuing system out there that is out of whack. That's not my beef with your position. My beef is that you seem to think the way to fix the problem is to use the tax system to redistribute wages after the fact. I'd argue that if you were serious about that problem, you fix the wage-disparity problem BEFORE taxes are even collected.
And that requires fixing a lot of other systems that are out there, first.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
nocaplato
Adventuring Hero
Lover of Ancient Philosophy
|
|
posted October 31, 2008 06:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
For this statement to be even remotely credible, you have to define what "rich" means, income-wise.
What rich means I don't pretend to know personally. I'd guess if you were in the top 10% of income earners you'd probably be considered rich. According to the CBO that's roughly 200,000 a year, give or take 10,000, though I don't see what you mean. To clarify, what I meant by seeing work as a refuge is that many folks put in lots of hours at work. My sense, and I could be totally wrong, is that people who make good money do it for more than just the money. They do it because they honestly love their job or because they're work-a-holics. I may be wrong, but again, my sense is that if you're opting to spend lots of time at work, ironing out the next sale, the next meeting, the final draft of your designs or whatever else it is, you're choosing to do it, rather than being forced to do it by economic constraints. I'd argue that the middle classes, those making let's say 50k or less a year (depending on their debt and size of family) don't necessarily work more because they *want* to but often because they *have* to. That was my meaning.
Quote:
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In that time the high end of the scale has tripled their average income, yet the low end has only increased, in the state of California, to 7.25 an hour. That's not 300 percent, but 50.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are they both getting paid more than they were? Yes? Then what's the problem? The salaries of college graduates are increasing at a faster rate than those of low-end workers. What's the problem with that?
It's not that they're getting paid more, not alone. There's also the problem of inflation. Money 30 years ago is not the same as money today, that should go without saying. Think about fuel prices, and let's talk about them pre-Bush. I don't know any real statistics here, but as a kid, I remember paying 89 cents a gallon for gas all the time. Before W. came to office we were pahing double that. If inflation held true across the market, it means the 7.25 you were making 8 years ago is worth less actual money. Prices doubled while pay rates only increased by 50% (at the lowest end).
As for the college pay rates, assuming the claim here is a given (which I don't think is true), the problem is that you are actively allowing the wage gap to increase based solely on college graduation rates. It's a mistake to think a college education is the one and only means we should permit in order to lead a financially secure life. In fact, I think it borders on the worst kind of elitism (please, I don't mean to offend here, I'm just referring to the idea itself, which I believe is wrong). Believe me when I say there are lots of kids out there who, not only can't go to college, but just shouldn't. Do we condemn this class of folks to lower status because their skills are not academic? It discards far too much of what we need in society. Who is going to fix your air conditioner, your toilet, your car, your refrigerator, or put in your pool? Are these skills we demand an education to do? I would hope not. Does that mean they should be devalued by default? Again, I hope not.
I think it's artificial to favor 'working smarter' over working harder. According to recent brain research there are 8 intelligences; mathematical/logical, linguistic, visual/spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal, kinesthetic, naturalistic (the sciences) and musical. Only a rare few of these intelligences are of the acadmic sort, namely naturalistic, mathematical/logical and linguistic. The other five intelligences don't require, nor can they necessarily be helped by academic instruction except in the most esoteric and removed of circumstances. Everyone has some access to each of the intelligence areas within our brain, though at differing rates. Does that mean people who are naturally gifted in the acadmic areas, by environment or genetics, be lifted up above the others? I don't think so. Each skill has its area of need within a functioning society. To place economic pressure on a few parts of our development and identity is to deny far too much of our humanity, and yet that is exactly what is happening in schools today. It's unfair to the kid who is fantastic with mechanical work (a mix of kinesthetic and logical) to be relegated to a lower economic status because he or she hates to read (linguistic). Not only that, it reduces the talent in the related field. Besides, all this raises the question, what does 'working smarter' mean exactly? I have a talent with linguistics... likely it's a combination of my early childhood spent chasing my dad around to other countries. Does that mean I'm one of the elect who should be given special priority over someone who spent her life learning how to manufacture or repair a piece of high tech equipment? Again, I just don't think so.
It's a rare thing these days for a teacher to admit, some kids just should not go to college, but believe me, there are kids who should not. It would stunt their emotional growth, throw their life out of kilter and deny their basic interests. Yet our school system, especially under NCLB is doing exactly that, emphasising just two of the intelligences and denigrating the others. I think it's fundamentally wrong.
@Corribus
Quote:
I've made mistakes. Though, I wasn't stupid enough to have a kid when I was 18. And what mistakes I've made I've taken responsibility for and accepted the consequences like an adult. I certainly haven't expected other people to help me out of the holes I dug for myself.
Naw, I don't really want to disparage your view of people in her situation. Instead, I think she is paying for the mistakes she made in the best way she can, given her circumstances. No slight at all against you or your position. Please don't be offended. But I don't think women in this position are asking for a hand out. They see life for what it is and are making very hard choices to give their kids the best chance they can.
I take issue with two things, first is the point I made about the child earlier and the cyclical nature of these sorts of things. If we were a caring society we'd try to balance ourselves enough so that the work she puts in (as a manager of a store, not exactly *dumb* work) should gain her ground enough to raise the kid up, rather than drive them apart, ensuring that we have still more of what's called the 'cylical poor'. We need to take steps to break the disparity and one way is to ensure equitable pay rates.
Talk to your folks about this. I'll bet most of them will tell you that, in a two parent household, one wage earner could have provided for his (gender bias noted) entire family from just one job. That's simply not the case any more, and one of our great shames as a nation that we've lost that standard.
Second is the general notion that Americans have that we live in a welfare state where the poor are somehow rewarded for being poor or that the rich are penalized for being rich. While you or Mvass may not think this personally, a lot of people do. Statistics show it among most groups. Even the poor themselves tend to take on a measure of personal guilt for not being able to handle their debts. Somewhere around here I've got the statistics and sources, but from memory, it's something like 60% of Americans tend to blame people for the economics of their situation. I'll look for the sources later, but, if you'll forgive me, let's take it as a given that stat is true. If so, it's not just the high earners, or even the top 2 quintiles of earners that feel this way. It's a pretty wide margin of folks who think along those lines.
My main beef is with the idea that the poor aren't trying to help themselves up and out of poverty. I think women like Alex's mom have given up on the idea of ever becoming wealthy. I think instead they hope to improve the lot of their children.... Again, that's a pretty universal American dream. But, if the top end are garnering the wealth to themselves it leaves the rest with less opportunity to actually help their children.
The fact is, like it or not, there is only so much GDP the country produces every year. If a tilted amount is going to the top end, that leaves less to go around for everyone else. McCain's been talking about creating new wealth, but even then how much of the pie goes to the top end? Let's face it, wealth continues to collect with the wealthy because they have, on average, a statistically better shot at grabbing up wealth. The converse is true for the poor; they have less shot of gathering up the wealth so there's less chance they'll be able to change their situation.
If, on the other hand, we look to creating wealth as a country, there's still only so many resources, so many sales, so many goods that can flow around the world ending in a sort of economic world war. The wealthier a nation gets, the less total global production there is to spread around to the other nations. Does that mean I want America to spread it's wealth to other nations? Heck no, I have too much of a vested interest in my own daughter to want that. I want the potential of the American dream to be more than just a 5% or less chance. I want her skill, ambition, talent, drive, work ethic, and so on to be allies for her. In short, I want my daughter to have more wealth than I do. For that I'm willing to struggle, advocate, to ensure her education... in short, I'm willing to work myself silly to give her that shot. I think most good parents are with me on this be they poor, middle class or rich. If that means a dominant America, in spite of the global ethical dilemma it might mean, I damn well believe in it.
I believe that there are groups in the country who simply make far, far too much given what they actually produce. CEOs of major companies are one such set. As might be certain groups of lawyers, public speakers, and more. It seems obscene to me that a CEO of a company makes three times now what they made 30 years ago but are effectively doing the same job. Particularly because the extra three salaries they're receiving every year now would be enough to lift 30 other families from abject poverty into the 3 quintile... and that's just the pay raise they've managed... that top end would still be in the top 5% even if they gave away that pay increase. Do I want them to be forced to give it away? No, that's ridiculous too. However I, like you, am interested in social equity. Why do the people with the skills to create the products sold by a company merit so much less pay than the guy who handles the pay roll? Isn't the source of the payroll the very same folks who create the product in the first place? It's just all out of whack.
I also don't think it's purely a matter of education. In the years after World War II, some of the most powerful periods of growth and wealth ever seen in our country, the college graduation rates weren't all that good. It wasn't till the Space Race ignited in 1957 that education hit its boom years. Sure, there was the GI bill prior to that, giving vets a chance to increase their place, but it was a full 12 years before the launch of Sputnik spurred our country into a drive toward increasingly better education and more advanced degrees. In those 12 years an unprecedented spread of wealth occured, along with the creation of the suburbs, lawn care, two car garages and all the other trappings of the idealic Nuclear Family. Those years were in many ways the hallmark of American power and are still the core idyll of many conservatives to this day. Now, 50 years later we have a nation starkly divided, we have incredibly high graduation rates from college at the same time as we have increasing rates of poverty and consumer uncertainty. What good things have come from the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer folks? That age old dream, the 'Leave it to Beaver' ideal itself is being destroyed by the sea change of wealth toward the top end.
It doesn't make sense to me that a person making what should be middle quintile these days could be making the same comparative pay rates as those in the lowest quintile only 30 years ago. Why do the trade skills have to suffer? Do they work less now than they did 30 years ago? Do they do poorer work? Per capita, is there really that much more competition for skilled work, like electricians? Again, I just don't think so. Instead, I tend to think that owners and operators of mega-corporations are consolidating a stranglehold on wealth itself. It's an argument I get in all the time, even with fellow teachers (a relatively liberal bunch). Why buy coffee from Starbucks when the local mom and pop shop serves better morning brew? Why shop at Wal-mart when you could shop at the local five and dime, get the same stuff for a little bit more, but keep the money in the community? What's so glamorous about Old Navy or Footlocker that demands you do your shopping there instead of in one of hundreds of local places where your money goes straight to the people who run the place, pay the payrolls and keep the money close to home? I'm a staunch advocate of business and capitalism. So long as the business is local and the capital stays as close to home as possible. We've become so infatuated with the commercialist aspects of our culture that we ignore 'Main Street' in favor of Wall Street all the time.... crap, I feel a rant coming on... I'll shorten it to this simple statement: Anyone who thinks the crisis on Wall Street is a distant affair, and who also does their shopping at a franchise, is not only deluding themselves, but is also a lying to him/herself. Wall Street wouldn't matter half so much if we just shopped at Jim's Toy Shop, instead of x-mas shopping at the big box places.
Quote:
I'd argue that if you were serious about that problem, you fix the wage-disparity problem BEFORE taxes are even collected.
And that requires fixing a lot of other systems that are out there, first.
Holy Moses, you've identified a real tickler of a problem here. I agree with you though.... see the almost rant above.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2008 10:41 AM |
|
|
And one of it is this one here:
Quote:
JJ:
Insurance companies regulate cost, to a certain extent, making doctors compete, so that doesn't happen so much. Plus, if a person just keeps returning to the doctor all the time, that could have a toll on that doctor's reputation and result in less patients.
A bit off-topic, but considering that health care seems to have been a big issue in this election and the fact that the US BY FAR are spending already the most money for health (with less than spectacular results, one might add), this opinion documents that most people are still trusting a system that is a complete free-for-all.
The aim of a capitalist health care system is - for those who work in the health business -, to make as much money out of it as possible. It looks like you've forgotten this. The aim is not to cure people, mind you, or make them healthy. Because it's A BUSINESS. If you run a hospital, it's first and foremost a BUSINESS operation in the service branch. You offer the services of medical treatment, and you want to make a profit out of it.
The same is true for the insurance companies. They are profit-oriented business operations as well and want to make a profit out of it as well. Which means, that BOTH parties CASH IN.
The basic problem here is that THERE IS NO COMPETITION. The reason is simple: ILL PERSONS DON'T PICK. They go to the nearest doc. In case of an accident they go to the NEXT hospital - or to the one the ambulance service has a contract with (hospital will give them cash for delivery of accidents). Ill persons don't have time to compare prices. And insurances can't force their clients to go to a hospital 300 miles away, obviously.
It's like when it's 1 o'clock in the night and you suddenly know you just NEED something to eat, but the fridge is dead empty. Do you take an hour drive through the city to the 24 hours market, or do you just slip around the corner, paying double the rate, but heck?
Exactly.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 31, 2008 01:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Whoa! Hold it! I don't agree with that at all. It might be true in some, even many, circumstances, that some rich people are rich because their parents were rich. But to paint with such a broad stroke as to say that all rich people are rich because they "had better opportunities" (whatever that means), well, sorry - I don't believe that for one second.
There are a lot of rich people out there that are rich because they created their own opportunities by working like dogs, thinking out side the box, taking risks, and making sacrifices when they needed to. I don't think it's any more fair to broadly paint the wealthy as entitled, snotty, undeserving people who were handed everything on a platter any more than it's fair to paint the poor as lazy, unmotivated whining ingrates who just want to have everything handed to them on a platter.
Yes but by opportunities I didn't mean parents or something that it's not their doing. Sure they work hard once those opportunities are met, but think about it: not everyone could have opened Bill Gates' business even if they wanted to. Even though perhaps Bill worked hard, my point still stands: others who would have wanted the same simply couldn't do it. There is no such thing as "everyone becoming millionaires" because millionaires most times DEPEND on such "weaker" people.
|
|
doomnezeu
Supreme Hero
Miaumiaumiau
|
|
posted October 31, 2008 03:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There are a lot of rich people out there that are rich because they created their own opportunities by working like dogs, thinking out side the box, taking risks, and making sacrifices when they needed to.
This may be true where you come from, but certainly not Romania.
Here, you either steal to get rich, either mom and dad stole for you when ye were a kid.
Sory for the off topic, had to say that, because there are places where things go this way.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2008 12:17 AM |
|
|
nocaplato:
Quote:
According to the CBO that's roughly 200,000 a year, give or take 10,000, though I don't see what you mean.
Because "rich" is a subjective term. I would define "rich" as anybody who makes $500,000 a year. You define it differently.
Quote:
My sense, and I could be totally wrong, is that people who make good money do it for more than just the money. They do it because they honestly love their job or because they're work-a-holics. I may be wrong, but again, my sense is that if you're opting to spend lots of time at work, ironing out the next sale, the next meeting, the final draft of your designs or whatever else it is, you're choosing to do it, rather than being forced to do it by economic constraints.
What? Who says it's one or the other? Take my dad, for example. He definitely chooses to do what he does (electronic engineering), and he really likes it, but he has to do it, or otherwise we wouldn't have any money. He spends a lot of time at work, and enjoys it, but it's still very much an economic necessity. Where does he fit in your dichotomy?
Quote:
It's not that they're getting paid more, not alone. There's also the problem of inflation.
I would say that those figures are adjusted for inflation, otherwise, it doesn't sound realistic.
Quote:
Do we condemn this class of folks to lower status because their skills are not academic?
No, we simply pay them less because they're not as productive. If they don't go to college but manage to get a productive job, then they'll still get paid a lot. But under no circumstances should a janitor be paid as much as a doctor. Think about it. Let's say a hospital has an equal number of doctors and janitors. Now let us say a doctor or a janitor quits. Which is going to affect the hospital more heavily? The doctor, of course, because he/she is more productive. We pay not for a college education but for increased productivity, to which college education is a good road. And if people don't want to be as productive as they can be, fine, that's their choice, we're not consigning them to a lower-class life; they are.
Quote:
Does that mean people who are naturally gifted in the acadmic areas, by environment or genetics, be lifted up above the others?
Yes. At least, if it makes them more productive.
Quote:
It's unfair to the kid who is fantastic with mechanical work (a mix of kinesthetic and logical) to be relegated to a lower economic status because he or she hates to read (linguistic).
Time for another analogy. Let us say that you're wanting to hire a bricklayer. One can build a wall in 3 hours, the other can do it in 2. Which one are you going to hire? The second one, of course, if the cost-efficiency justifies it. Is it unfair to the first one, who may be a great poet in his spare time? No, of course not. What matters is not how intelligent, hard-working, or naturally talented somebody is, but how much he/she does stuff that other people/companies are willing to buy. What matters is not what you can do, but what you actually do.
Quote:
It seems obscene to me that a CEO of a company makes three times now what they made 30 years ago but are effectively doing the same job.
Small differences in productivity matter much more at the top than they do at the bottom. That's why, for example, while all NBA players are great at basketball, small differences in ability make huge differences in pay. And being a CEO today is harder than it was 30 years ago, so they have to be more productive.
Quote:
Why buy coffee from Starbucks when the local mom and pop shop serves better morning brew? Why shop at Wal-mart when you could shop at the local five and dime, get the same stuff for a little bit more, but keep the money in the community? What's so glamorous about Old Navy or Footlocker that demands you do your shopping there instead of in one of hundreds of local places where your money goes straight to the people who run the place, pay the payrolls and keep the money close to home?
I actually wrote something for school on this very subject, and here it is:
Perhaps because of the financial crisis, there has been a resurgence of attention to helping “local communities” by using their products and services. The reasoning is that a dollar spent at a local business will go to support it, the business will pay local workers with it, those workers will spend their money within the community, and so the money will circulate locally. This is supposed to make the small town develop economically, and perhaps avoid the fate that many see on the news – bank closings and business failures. This is contrasted with going to the “faceless multinational” that is cheaper but doesn’t care about the local community, and sends its profits to line the pockets of greedy CEOs and foreign countries.
Such thinking is flawed for several reasons. First, it assumes that if one spends money at a local business, that business will spend money locally as well, and continue the investment in the community. However, businesses aim to make a profit. If they can make a bigger profit by using the money you spent to go to the multinational themselves and buy something for less, then they will do so.
Second, it presumes that money spent at the multinational disappears and never does anything useful again. But, just as in the small town example, the multinational spends that money to buy products around the world and generate economic growth. The money then goes to the manufacturers who make the products that the multinational then sells. These manufacturers use money to buy raw materials and to pay their workers. Many of these workers are in poor countries and subsisting on wages that are low by American standards, but high when compared to wages offered by jobs that existed before the international manufacturers moved in.
Third, it assumes that because someone is benefiting, someone is being harmed. This is a false assumption. Abraham Lincoln once made the same mistake during the Civil War, advising the purchase of more expensive American rails rather than cheaper British ones. He said, “If we buy the rails from England, then we’ve got the rails and they’ve got the money. But if we build the rails here, we’ve got our rails and we’ve got our money.” To understand why this is incorrect, consider a similar statement: “If I buy bread at the store, then I have the bread and they have my money. But if I harvest wheat, grind the grain into flour, make dough, then leaven and bake it, then I will have the bread and my money.” This is obviously not the most productive method, and is as untrue when it comes to rails as when it comes to bread.
To further understand why, consider a society in which only two people exist: a farmer and a blacksmith. Initially, they don’t trade. The farmer both farms and blacksmiths for himself, though he is more productive when farming than when blacksmithing. The blacksmith also performs both tasks, but is more productive when blacksmithing than when farming.
Then, the farmer and the blacksmith decide to exchange the products of their labours. The farmer can now exclusively focus on farming, since that is what he does best. The blacksmith can do likewise for blacksmithing. They exchange their surplus, since each produces more than he can use by himself. Thus, they become more productive. They can use their excess productivity for some new aim.
The situation with the consumer and the multinational is similar. Since the multinational is more productive, the consumer can get goods at a lower price, thus leaving more money to save or to spend on other things. This surplus money can be used for whatever purpose the consumer wants. If the consumer is concerned about the local community, he or she can donate the money to some local organisation. Since the surplus generated is larger, it can be put to greater use. Thus, it could benefit the local community even more than using the goods and services of local businesses.
Such free trade has several additional benefits. It promotes peace: two countries that are economically dependent on each other are much less likely to go to war with one another. It also helps developing countries develop, since it provides opportunities to people who previously have not had them. Another benefit is that the surplus produced creates jobs, since the additional money makes more demand possible.
Though the benefits of free trade are well established, there is still opposition to it. Most of it hinges on putting short-term self-interest ahead of much greater long-term benefits. The idea of “protecting American jobs” is clearly flawed, because it prevents the creation of numerous new jobs and inhibits productivity. In 1992, Ross Perot claimed that the North American Free Trade Agreement would create “a giant sucking sound” of jobs heading to Mexico because wages are lower there. Today, most economists agree that NAFTA had a small but positive effect on the American, Mexican, and Canadian economies, and that there was no “giant sucking sound” because American workers are, on average, more productive than workers in Mexico, so, in many cases, their higher cost was justified.
Thus, there should be more free trade and less localism. Henry Ford said, “There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.” Free trade helps achieve this goal; localism inhibits it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2008 12:29 AM |
|
|
JJ:
You're exaggerating the relative importance of people who are sick right now and need an ambulance. A far more common occurrence is when people need to see the doctor, run a few tests, or get treated for something, but it isn't an emergency and they do indeed have time to shop around, thus causing competition. But insurance companies themselves inhibit competition between doctors/hospitals because they pay. Instead, there is competition between insurance companies, but that isn't quite as efficient, and, even with insurance competition, prices rise. Hence, my suggestion, which I have posted both here and on CH. It makes competition much more active by reducing the role of insurance companies.
TheDeath:
Wrong. Did Bill Gates make me poorer? No. He made me richer, and he never mailed a check to my family. Quite the opposite; we pay Microsoft to use their OS. And yet it makes us richer. Think about that.
Perhaps an analogy is in order.
Imagine a community in which everybody is a farmer. (What, no blacksmiths? ) They produce barely more than they can eat. Then, one day, an agronomist wanders into the community. The farmers pool their tiny surplus and hire the agronomist, who improves farming techniques and makes all of them richer. The farmers are better off because they are more productive, and the agronomist gets paid for helping them. Who is worse off?
Then a blacksmith (yes!) wanders into town. The farmers use their increased surplus to hire him, and he makes tools for them. Thus, they become even more productive, the blacksmith gets paid to do what he's good at, and the agronomist, because the surplus is further increased, gets more too. Who is worse off?
So the community continues to develop with various additions throughout the years. Everybody gets more and more productive and richer. Technology advances. One day, Bill Gates walks into town. He invents DOS and sells it, and people want to buy it because it makes them more productive. Thus, they are made more productive and Bill Gates gets paid money to do what he's good at. Who is worse off?
No, of course not everyone can be Bill Gates. But nearly everyone is better off because of Bill Gates.
Doomnezeu:
Corruption is a difficult problem, and I don't really know how to go about fixing it, except shrinking the power of government and reducing the power of the corrupt.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
