"Personal Responsibility"

[MattShizzle]

Why are these 2 words the mantra of the right wing/capitalists when they blame the poor for having a badly paying job/no job? Posted it here because I'm interested in hearing from them.

[The Teacher]

I'm not a right winger but the thinking is, "everyone struggles in life, so if someone born into a completely different situation than me is having problems, then they can't be any worse than mine and I do okay"

Also there are teenage mothers collecting government checks and smoking wed all day. So the generalization is that every poor person does that exact same thing.

Like if one black person steals, all blacks are criminals. But when a white person steals, he's a bad apple

[GatesofLenin]

A phrase beloved by those that grew up gold spoon fed. They love to spew nonsense like the fantasy that hard work will make you rich, when we all know the truth is the poorest people are the hardest workers.

[The Teacher]

They were smart enough to get yanked out of a vagina that belonged to the right social class

[MattShizzle]

Anti-abortion slime often ask something like "why should a child be killed because a woman doesn't want to deal with the natural and expected consequences of unprotected sex???"

1. In the heat of the moment protection might not be used, also rape. And no protection is 100% effective
2. A fetus isn't a child. It's not even conscious.
3. By that "logic" we shouldn't give anyone who gets an STD antibiotics/antivirals, nobody should get ER treatment if they are injured doing something stupid, driving recklessly, not wearing a seat belt/helmet, etc. And no cancer treatments for smokers!
3a of course having sex isn't a bad thing unlike most of the things in 3 - especially reckless driving and in some cases smoking which endangers others.

[Veovis]

Anti-abortion slime often ask something like "why should a child be killed because a woman doesn't want to deal with the natural and expected consequences of unprotected sex???"

1. In the heat of the moment protection might not be used, also rape. And no protection is 100% effective
2. A fetus isn't a child. It's not even conscious.
3. By that "logic" we shouldn't give anyone who gets an STD antibiotics/antivirals, nobody should get ER treatment if they are injured doing something stupid, driving recklessly, not wearing a seat belt/helmet, etc. And no cancer treatments for smokers!
3a of course having sex isn't a bad thing unlike most of the things in 3 - especially reckless driving and in some cases smoking which endangers others.

Careful, that last one might actually gain traction in the U.S.

[MattShizzle]

It's already just about the case if you don't have money. No insurance, no treatment if you don't have money. Fuck this ****-ry.

[Judicator]

I think it's more about who should bear the consequences of certain actions/sets of circumstances, the government (government responsibility) or the individual (personal responsibility).


3. By that "logic" we shouldn't give anyone who gets an STD antibiotics/antivirals, nobody should get ER treatment if they are injured doing something stupid, driving recklessly, not wearing a seat belt/helmet, etc. And no cancer treatments for smokers!

Why would an advocate of personal responsibility want to bar individuals from purchasing emergency care? The question isn't whether or not they should get services at all, it is who should bear the costs when their risky choices end up hurting them. Why should I be able to ride a motorcycle (a private gain - I enjoy it) but then force society bear the costs of my risky habit, when there are others who don't indulge?

[Lynx]

Why are these 2 words the mantra of the right wing/capitalists when they blame the poor for having a badly paying job/no job? Posted it here because I'm interested in hearing from them.
It's a rationale that blames the victim and exonerates the status quo. It's as simple as that.

[MattShizzle]

That's how I see it. I wonder how many of them actually believe that anyone can be succesful if they work hard enough. Anyone who believes so honestly is either very stupid, hopelessly ignorant or insane.

[Lynx]

Those who rely on anecdotal evidence likely believe it. If they don't actually believe it then they are being disingenuous.

[RGacky3]

Talking Personal Responsibility when talking about economics is as stupid as talking about personal conditioning when discussing military strategy.

Meaning it has nothing to do with anything, your economic policy should'nt be trying to change the way individuals act individually, its a system of incentives, production and distribution.

If you have a system of crappy incentives, production and distribution responding with "people should just have personal responsibility," is juts a way of not addressing your crappy system.

[kapitalyst]

Why are these 2 words the mantra of the right wing/capitalists when they blame the poor for having a badly paying job/no job? Posted it here because I'm interested in hearing from them.

A better question is your excuse? How is it that others more "disadvantaged" -- physically, financially, psychologically, circumstantially, etc -- have prevailed yet you fail? :)

I notice there is a lot of confusion about "working hard" and what that means. It does not mean physical labor (though it could). A student working hard on a research project can be a harder worker than a blacksmith or factory worker. To succeed in the world of finance was harder than being a warehouse worker. In the warehouse, I worked often in 12+ hour shifts. Today I sometimes work over 24hrs with no sleep -- but usually put in 14 - 18 hour days. Instead of 5 days a week, now it's 6 (sometimes 7). My initial struggle to "break the mold" was the most difficult thing I've ever done in my life... I'd never before been so mentally, physically and emotionally drained. To me, "working hard" is testing your limits, taking risks and chasing your dream. Not necessarily carrying boxes around.

[Revolution starts with U]

I agree that we should not forsake hard work and personal responsiblity because it is a misguided mantra of the right wing. Those 2 things make us great, they are a large part of the reason we think of humans as something different from nature. Hard work and personal responsilbity created civilization, and it is how workers engage in the struggle. You need to be responsible to yourself and work hard at what you do, or you're just wasting your time.
But it is just an absolute fallacy to think those things alone will eliminate the class dynamic and/or government tyranny. You could be a responsible and hard working slave master. They represent nothing about the nature of society and work just as well in NAZI Germany as here in the States, or as in the USSR. Anyone, in any system can adopt these principles and only further strengthen that system.
Opposition to the class dynamic is what will liberate mankind. Make that your obsession, work hard it, and be responsible to yourself about it :cool:

[kapitalyst]

I agree that we should not forsake hard work and personal responsiblity because it is a misguided mantra of the right wing. Those 2 things make us great, they are a large part of the reason we think of humans as something different from nature. Hard work and personal responsilbity created civilization, and it is how workers engage in the struggle. You need to be responsible to yourself and work hard at what you do, or you're just wasting your time.
But it is just an absolute fallacy to think those things alone will eliminate the class dynamic and/or government tyranny. You could be a responsible and hard working slave master. They represent nothing about the nature of society and work just as well in NAZI Germany as here in the States, or as in the USSR. Anyone, in any system can adopt these principles and only further strengthen that system.
Opposition to the class dynamic is what will liberate mankind. Make that your obsession, work hard it, and be responsible to yourself about it :cool:

You're right. Personal responsibility is, well, personal... It can only contribute to your personal financial success and material situation. That's all someone like me claims it can do for you. And yes, sometimes circumstances can be a ***** despite it. Personal responsibility is not buying that big-screen on your Visa card... not getting drunk and wrecking your car... saving money and investing it... furthering your education... etc... It can be many things, depending on your goals. But no, it won't change society.

I also believe that I have social responsibilities. I believe this because I'm a Christian... it's my duty to overcome my natural greed and apathy, with heart and logic, to help others. If I see a man who's hungry, it's my duty to feed him. If I see a man with no shoes, it's my duty to give him a pair. Jesus had a very "socialist" message. But, as he often said, such things must be done by an individual's own accord. :)

[RGacky3]

Jesus had a very "socialist" message. But, as he often said, such things must be done by an individual's own accord. http://www.revleft.com/vb/personal-responsibility-t162492/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

Although his followers set up actual communist institutions, so it was'nt individual.

[Revolution starts with U]

You're right. Personal responsibility is, well, personal... It can only contribute to your personal financial success and material situation. That's all someone like me claims it can do for you. And yes, sometimes circumstances can be a ***** despite it. Personal responsibility is not buying that big-screen on your Visa card... not getting drunk and wrecking your car... saving money and investing it... furthering your education... etc... It can be many things, depending on your goals. But no, it won't change society.

I also believe that I have social responsibilities. I believe this because I'm a Christian... it's my duty to overcome my natural greed and apathy, with heart and logic, to help others. If I see a man who's hungry, it's my duty to feed him. If I see a man with no shoes, it's my duty to give him a pair. Jesus had a very "socialist" message. But, as he often said, such things must be done by an individual's own accord. :)

But it will change the world. If one person works hard at being a socialist, and inspires another to, that's 2 socialists. If he inspires 2, that's 3! Keep going and it gets exponentially bigger :wub: As they say, the only true revolution is a personal one.

(This is a different topic, but Jesus was not a socialist. He was a leftist, for sure. But he was a primitivist, for the most part. He forsook all materialism (give up your goods and walk the earth preaching the Good Word), rather than letting people take control of the means of production.)

Do people not think Marx worked hard? Have you seen how much the man wrote? Christ, he must have had rooms full of notebooks lying around! :blink: He found his goal was to describe capitalism and identify the class struggle for the benefit of labor, and he worked very hard at achieving that goal.


Although his followers set up actual communist institutions, so it was'nt individual.

Methodological Individualism :thumbup1:

[CommunityBeliever]

Do people not think Marx worked hard? Have you seen how much the man wrote? Christ, he must have had rooms full of notebooks lying around! :blink:Not to mention Lenin! He worked incredibly hard.

[Misanthrope]

Because the capitalists are incapable of seeing any worker as a victim. They are in love with the heroism of the fantasy capitalist.

[kapitalyst]

Because the communists are incapable of seeing any wealthy person as a human too. They are in love with the demonization of the fantasy capitalist.

Fixed! :lol:

[Misanthrope]

Fixed! :lol:

Except the demonization of the capitalist is completely justified and evident.

[kapitalyst]

Except the demonetization of the capitalist is completely justified and evident.

"demonetization" of the capitalist? We're going to be demonetized (i.e., "un-monetized") and no longer used as currency? :lol:

But sure, it is... just as it was justified that Bilbo Baggins tried to kill Smaug.

[Revolution starts with U]

Seeing as how Smaug kicked out all the industrious little people (dwarves) and stole their treasures... I would say that is a pretty apt metaphor :D

[FALCIGYRL]

A better question is your excuse? How is it that others more "disadvantaged" -- physically, financially, psychologically, circumstantially, etc -- have prevailed yet you fail? :)

- They haven't. Pointing to tiny exceptions in the face of starving billions and wage-slaves with zero economic mobility worldwide who try to live on 2 dollars a week, isn't an example that capitalism works, it's evidence that capitalism does not work. The majority of the wealthy got their money from their Mommies and Daddies and the reason why they can hold onto that money is obvious. More money means a greater ability to network and invest with lesser risk, with more money comes the ability to purchase better educations with less risk for debt, which doubles or could triple or quadruple in value in a matter of three years essentially making you richer by paying for it. In short: more money comes with more reward for less risk. The Trust Fund Baby elite have a fifteen lap head-start in a 20 lap race and the proof that a few people can catch up with them and lap them, is not evidence that the race is fair. It's evidence that the people with the advantage are hopelessly mediocre and suck. And now in the current political climate, with the biggest advantage they've ever had in that race, the so-called best and brightest only seem to want to complain that they can't have an even larger advantage. They're whiners and crybabies and lazy.


I notice there is a lot of confusion about "working hard" and what that means. It does not mean physical labor (though it could). A student working hard on a research project can be a harder worker than a blacksmith or factory worker.

- No. A student working on his research paper might be working, but he's not relative to a coal-miner or a sewer worker or construction worker. Reading and writing can be tough for some people, but digging into a mountain and getting black lung is tough for EVERYBODY. If the student gives up, he doesn't get a high mark in his class, if the sewer workers, coal miners and construction workers give up, we don't have working plumbing, fuel or highways and society crumbles. There is a difference in value.


To succeed in the world of finance was harder than being a warehouse worker. In the warehouse, I worked often in 12+ hour shifts. Today I sometimes work over 24hrs with no sleep -- but usually put in 14 - 18 hour days. Instead of 5 days a week, now it's 6 (sometimes 7).

Congratulations, I've seen average teachers, artists and writers work the same (or even more difficult) schedules and make considerably less than traders or hedge fund managers (in fact often being forced to work for free) while being more integral to society while utilizing more skills in their work. A single mother of a friend of mine worked 4 jobs while going to university and raising two sons for six years. Her work-load makes your 'testing limits' look like a walk in the park.

[kapitalyst]

- They haven't. Pointing to tiny exceptions in the face of starving billions and wage-slaves with zero economic mobility worldwide who try to live on 2 dollars a week, isn't an example that capitalism works, it's evidence that capitalism does not work. The majority of the wealthy got their money from their Mommies and Daddies and the reason why they can hold onto that money is obvious. More money means a greater ability to network and invest with lesser risk, with more money comes the ability to purchase better educations with less risk for debt, which doubles or could triple or quadruple in value in a matter of three years essentially making you richer by paying for it. In short: more money comes with more reward for less risk. The Trust Fund Baby elite have a fifteen lap head-start in a 20 lap race and the proof that a few people can catch up with them and lap them, is not evidence that the race is fair. It's evidence that the people with the advantage are hopelessly mediocre and suck. And now in the current political climate, with the biggest advantage they've ever had in that race, the so-called best and brightest only seem to want to complain that they can't have an even larger advantage. They're whiners and crybabies and lazy.


While this was a nice propaganda rant, it contains next to nothing in substance and fact.

First of all, examples of people rising above the perceived class barrier they were born under are actually quite common. Secondly, the average annual income (per capita) for the entire world is just over $7,000. So that's an average daily wage of about $20... not $2. Still quite poor, but you won't starve on $20/day. The average income in the capitalist west is around $35,000/yr. People in the third world need education, health care and industry... they need capitalism at home.

Your claim that "many billions are starving" is wildly exaggerated. Less than a billion people suffer from undernourishment. This is still a huge problem, and nothing to laugh at. But let's not exaggerate, comrade... ;)

Starvation: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation)
Figures on actual starvation are difficult to come by, but according to the FAO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAO), the less severe condition of undernourishment currently affects about 925 million people, or about 14 % of the world population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population).
It is also a myth that most wealthy people just inherited their fortune and did nothing. It also depends on what you consider "wealthy". The very wealthiest people in the world are, by overwhelming majority, "new money". They've made their own fortunes in the business world. They're people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. And the only reason that "old money" families are still wealthy is because they've recreated the family fortune generation after generation. Of course, that does provide a major advantage...so I have to agree there. However, you don't seem to have much knowledge of the realities of financial risk... as your statements make obvious.

"the biggest advantage they've ever had"? What exactly is that? The rich actually have less of an advantage today than they did throughout the course of human history. Many people now view getting or being rich a sin, and many government policies reflect this. But most of the advantage was actually taken away by capitalism. Gone are the days where your bloodline guarantees you large swaths of land, servants and title... making you automatically and forever rich. Now one (or a family) must obtain wealth in markets and fight to maintain and grow it.



- No. A student working on his research paper might be working, but he's not relative to a coal-miner or a sewer worker or construction worker. Reading and writing can be tough for some people, but digging into a mountain and getting black lung is tough for EVERYBODY. If the student gives up, he doesn't get a high mark in his class, if the sewer workers, coal miners and construction workers give up, we don't have working plumbing, fuel or highways and society crumbles. There is a difference in value.

No one said some types of physical labor aren't incredibly challenging. The point is that it's not the only type of hard work. One doesn't have to be a coal miner to be a hard worker. It's also silly to say one is more "valuable" than the other. If we had taken to your attitude 1000 years ago, we would still have the same technology as 1000 A.D. and all be "hard workers".



Congratulations, I've seen average teachers, artists and writers work the same (or even more difficult) schedules and make considerably less than traders or hedge fund managers (in fact often being forced to work for free) while being more integral to society while utilizing more skills in their work. A single mother of a friend of mine worked 4 jobs while going to university and raising two sons for six years. Her work-load makes your 'testing limits' look like a walk in the park.

I'm not comparing myself to anyone else, my friend. Comparing myself to myself. And I have some sad life stories too. Before I got where I am today, I had some pretty miserable times. But I'm not going to play "miserabler than thou"... counter-productive...

[CommunityBeliever]

Secondly, the average annual income (per capita) for the entire world is just over $7,000.

The average income value doesn't take into account income inequality. Three billion people live at $2 per day in the world.


Your claim that "many billions are starving" is wildly exaggerated. Less than a billion people suffer from undernourishment. This is still a huge problem, and nothing to laugh at. But let's not exaggerate, comrade... ;)I think what comrade FALCIGYRL meant to convey is that many billions are going hungry, not that they are suffering from severe starvation. There are 5.7 billion people in the third world, and it is logical to conclude that many of them are undernourished / relatively hungry, and this is not to mention the millions of people in the first world (e.g African Americans) who are suffering from capitalist exploitation, including hunger. Please see Food Crisis 2011 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2iVKzTcbHA) video from the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist).


They're people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.You mean they're like criminals? See the Microsoft vs United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft) case for some basic reasons as to why Bill Gates is a criminal. Another reason is that their corporations are based upon artificial scarcity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity), including proprietary software (you don't have access to Microsoft / Apple's source code) and planned obsolescence (which is why you have to buy a new version of Windows every few years). Artificial scarcity has held back technological progress for far too long.

[ComradeMan]

First of all, examples of people rising above the perceived class barrier they were born under are actually quite common. Secondly, the average annual income (per capita) for the entire world is just over $7,000. So that's an average daily wage of about $20... not $2. Still quite poor, but you won't starve on $20/day. The average income in the capitalist west is around $35,000/yr.

I am always suspicious of using averages. The average net salary in Italy (2006) was €1,457 (US$ 1,967) but Italy is fifth in the world according to the stats for the number of billionaires.... you see what this does to the averages? I know a hell of a lot of people who earn as little as €500 a month working full time and that figure above would be a dream for most people.

If you've got a population of 100- 95 of them earn €5 a day and 5 of them earn €100 a day then your average is €9.75 a day, nearly twice what 95% of the population are actually earning!!!

This is the problem with using averages.

[RGacky3]

First of all, examples of people rising above the perceived class barrier they were born under are actually quite common. Secondly, the average annual income (per capita) for the entire world is just over $7,000. So that's an average daily wage of about $20... not $2. Still quite poor, but you won't starve on $20/day. The average income in the capitalist west is around $35,000/yr. People in the third world need education, health care and industry... they need capitalism at home.


Average income is a terrible way to look at it, Median income is a much better, or actually looking at the income of the bottom 50% and the bottom 90%.

People in the third world have Capitalism at home, they are part of the global capitalist system, and thats the problem.

Infact much of third world (due to IMF and World bank policies) are subject to more economic liberalization than much of the first world.


It is also a myth that most wealthy people just inherited their fortune and did nothing. It also depends on what you consider "wealthy". The very wealthiest people in the world are, by overwhelming majority, "new money". They've made their own fortunes in the business world. They're people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. And the only reason that "old money" families are still wealthy is because they've recreated the family fortune generation after generation. Of course, that does provide a major advantage...so I have to agree there. However, you don't seem to have much knowledge of the realities of financial risk... as your statements make obvious.


A vast majority of the wealthy (be it new or old money does'nt matter) is wealth mostly inhereted, or at least hte capacity to accumulate wealth is inhereted.

As far as new money, it does'nt matter, those stories are irrelevant, the fact is there is juts a small amount of room for the ruling class, (Bill Gates came from a relatively well to do household), so some people will make it, but the vast majority will not, nor will they have the chance.

When we look at economic system, we have to think of one in which more people can have more prosperity.


But most of the advantage was actually taken away by capitalism. Gone are the days where your bloodline guarantees you large swaths of land, servants and title... making you automatically and forever rich. Now one (or a family) must obtain wealth in markets and fight to maintain and grow it.


Having money, makes it much easier to make more money, are you seriously denying this?

[danyboy27]

Personal responsability is the new romantic sentence du jour to totally ignore the material conditions all together.

Yes. personnal responsability exist, but without the proper material conditions this sentence dosnt mean shit.

[kapitalyst]

The average income value doesn't take into account income inequality. Three billion people live at $2 per day in the world.


Correct. Average doesn't show disparity. I'd like to see the source for the claim 3B people live on $2/day though.



I think what comrade FALCIGYRL meant to convey is that many billions are going hungry, not that they are suffering from severe starvation. There are 5.7 billion people in the third world, and it is logical to conclude that many of them are undernourished / relatively hungry, and this is not to mention the millions of people in the first world (e.g African Americans) who are suffering from capitalist exploitation, including hunger. Please see Food Crisis 2011 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2iVKzTcbHA) video from the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist).


My point was that the claim that billions are going hungry is false. It's actually less than a billion, and only 15% of the world population. Most people are fed adequately. This is not to marginalize the plight of those people who are starving, but just a reality check.



You mean they're like criminals? See the Microsoft vs United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft) case for some basic reasons as to why Bill Gates is a criminal. Another reason is that their corporations are based upon artificial scarcity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity), including proprietary software (you don't have access to Microsoft / Apple's source code) and planned obsolescence (which is why you have to buy a new version of Windows every few years). Artificial scarcity has held back technological progress for far too long.

Microsoft vs United States? What a sham... God damned Microsoft! That criminal Bill Gates made web browsers free! We want to have to pay $59.99 for one! :sleep:

And no... you buy a new PC or operating system every few years because we have rapid technological progress. If you can create a system that doesn't get beaten out by a superior product in a few years, have at it... the world is waiting.

[FALCIGYRL]

While this was a nice propaganda rant, it contains next to nothing in substance and fact.

Wrong on both counts. It's not propaganda it's my opinion. Which yes, is biased by my life experience, but that does not make it false or incorrect or without substance. Just because you're dismissive doesn't mean you're right.

But since you believe the facts will prove your point, lets look at a few of them care of Global Issues dot Org.

- Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.

- According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty.

- Around 27-28 percent of all children in developing countries are estimated to be underweight or stunted.

- Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.

- 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation.

- More than 660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day.

- There are 2 billion children in the world. 1 billion of them live in poverty.

- For the 1.9 billion children from the developing world, there are:
640 million without adequate shelter (1 in 3)
400 million with no access to safe water (1 in 5)
270 million with no access to health services (1 in 7)

- Worldwide,
10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (same as children population in France, Germany, Greece and Italy)
1.4 million die each year from lack of access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation

- In developing countries some 2.5 billion people are forced to rely on biomass—fuelwood, charcoal and animal dung—to meet their energy needs for cooking. In sub-Saharan Africa, over 80 percent of the population depends on traditional biomass for cooking, as do over half of the populations of India and China.Source

- Indoor air pollution resulting from the use of solid fuels [by poorer segments of society] is a major killer. It claims the lives of 1.5 million people each year, more than half of them below the age of five: that is 4000 deaths a day. To put this number in context, it exceeds total deaths from malaria and rivals the number of deaths from tuberculosis.

- 1.6 billion people — a quarter of humanity — live without electricity.

- World gross domestic product (world population approximately 6.5 billion) in 2006 was $48.2 trillion in 2006.

The world’s wealthiest countries (approximately 1 billion people) accounted for $36.6 trillion dollars (76%).

The world’s billionaires — just 497 people (approximately 0.000008% of the world’s population) — were worth $3.5 trillion (over 7% of world GDP).
Low income countries (2.4 billion people) accounted for just $1.6 trillion of GDP (3.3%) Middle income countries (3 billion people) made up the rest of GDP at just over $10 trillion (20.7%)

The world’s low income countries (2.4 billion people) account for just 2.4% of world exports

- The total wealth of the top 8.3 million people around the world “rose 8.2 percent to $30.8 trillion in 2004, giving them control of nearly a quarter of the world’s financial assets.”

- For every $1 in aid a developing country receives, over $25 is spent on debt repayment

- In 1960, the 20% of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20% — in 1997, 74 times as much.

- An analysis of long-term trends shows the distance between the richest and poorest countries was about:
3 to 1 in 1820
11 to 1 in 1913
35 to 1 in 1950
44 to 1 in 1973
72 to 1 in 1992

- For economic growth and almost all of the other indicators, the last 20 years [of the current form of globalization, from 1980 - 2000] have shown a very clear decline in progress as compared with the previous two decades [1960 - 1980]. For each indicator, countries were divided into five roughly equal groups, according to what level the countries had achieved by the start of the period (1960 or 1980). Among the findings:

Growth: The fall in economic growth rates was most pronounced and across the board for all groups or countries.

Life Expectancy: Progress in life expectancy was also reduced for 4 out of the 5 groups of countries, with the exception of the highest group (life expectancy 69-76 years).

Infant and Child Mortality: Progress in reducing infant mortality was also considerably slower during the period of globalization (1980-1998) than over the previous two decades.

Education and literacy: Progress in education also slowed during the period of globalization.Source

- The new poverty line of $1.25 a day was recently announced by the World Bank (in 2008). For many years before that it had been $1 a day. But the $1 a day used then would be $1.45 a day now if just inflation was accounted for.

The new figures from the World Bank therefore confirm concerns that poverty has not been reduced by as much as was hoped, although it certainly has dropped since 1981.

However, it appears that much of the poverty reduction in the last couple of decades almost exclusively comes from China:

China’s poverty rate fell from 85% to 15.9%, or by over 600 million people
China accounts for nearly all the world’s reduction in poverty
Excluding China, poverty fell only by around 10%



Your claim that "many billions are starving" is wildly exaggerated.

Not at all. Your example is superficial and trite, you found one sentence out of an article on Wikipedia that you agreed with and ignored the rest because it didn't promote your worldview and your example is compartmentalized conveniently enough to ignore a thousand other factors that arise in the same situation. There is more than just food to discuss here. You forgot clean water (both for cleaning the food and the people eating it and drinking it), you forgot electricity to heat or properly prepare food, not to mention refrigeration or did you not know that people need these things? And do you really think poverty's only killer is starvation? That speaks volumes about your life experience. If anything I was going easy on you. None of your "evidence" points to any other reality other than what I proposed. Sorry. The real world does not work under the rules of mythical Hallmark quotations where "You can Do Anything If you Try".

Please show me evidence that the poor are becoming billionaires overnight consistently. It's not there, it doesn't exist, it has NEVER existed. Exceptions to the rule are called exceptions for a reason. The market is not free or fair, it is corrupt, it is a sham, it is a pyramid scheme. Capitalism is still a fixed game slanted towards privilege and nothing else. Work ethic, innovation, intelligence and talent have next nothing to do with the majority of financial success in the current capitalist society. You can preach the Wallstreet Ubermench fairy tale until you're blue in the face, it doesn't change REALITY.



It is also a myth that most wealthy people just inherited their fortune and did nothing. It also depends on what you consider "wealthy". The very wealthiest people in the world are, by overwhelming majority, "new money". They've made their own fortunes in the business world. They're people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.

Truly? By overwhelming majority the very wealthiest people in the world are all rags to riches stories, people who just pulled up their suspenders and made it happen? Interesting comment. Let's see if you're right. Lets go right to Forbes, find the richest people in the world and do a background check!

Richest man in the world:

Carlos Sim. Comes from Rich Parents with Wealthy interests and tons of influence in their business community.

Bill Gates is your example of a rags to riches story? Bill Gates III who's mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way, and who's grandfather, J. W. Maxwell, was a national bank president? Gates who was given a computer to play with at an early age in an era when most families couldn't afford a television set. Truly hard work, and discipline and having parents that can afford state of the art technology that the majority of families on the planet could not obtain, does pay off in the end.

Warren Buffett: Wealthy parents coming from elite, rich prestige, father was U.S. Representative Howard Buffett. Basically born with one foot in the door, not only into business but politics as well. I'm sure if billions of third world children were given similar advantages, none of them would make a dime.

Bernard Arnault: Yes, a rags to riches story this one. He was given 40 million dollars after he graduated highschool when he convinced his father to liquidate a part of his business assets and change the direction of the family business (which was already worth hundreds of million dollars at the time). I'm willing to bet that if billions of starving people had similar privilege they'd all just end up right back on skidrow.

Larry Ellison: Finally a real rags to riches story! And in this case it deals with an adopted child who's father made millions in real estate and lost it all in the Great Depression. So there's a good chance he still had tons of business contacts to help out poor Larry, but Larry at least didn't have multi-million dollar safety nets so we'll give this one a nod.

Lakshmi Mittal: Came from one of the richest families in India, who made millions on Steel. Lakshmi has gone on to really break the mold, staying the richest family in India...making billions on Steel. Woooooooo!! Daring.

Amancio Ortega: Here we go folks. Honest to god, from middle class to billionaire via business ethic and hard work. That brings our number so far up to a whooping two!

Eike Batista: Well back to the Trust Fund Baby parade we go. Millionaire parents, a rich education overseas, literally thousands of contacts in every single level of business and politics imaginable by the time he was a teenager. Basically took over the family business. Wow-wee.

Mukesh Ambani: More of the same. Rich family. Owned an entire industry. Privileged, best education, blah, blah, blah.

Christy Walton: Richest woman in the world. Married into it via John Walton. Who was given it all by Sam Walton his Dad.

Of the following top 20 business men, Alice, Jim, and S Robson Walton, Stefan Persson, Charles and David Koch, Liliane Bettencourt, Sheldon Adelson, David Thomson, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud, Iris Fontbona,Shau Kee Lee, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Thomas and Raymond Kwok are all privileged and all came from privileged backgrounds, while Ka-shing Li and Karl Albrecht and Vladimir Lisin did not.

So those are the richest people on the planet. An overwhelming majority? Quite the contrary. But an interesting and significant factor to point out about all of the self-made billionaires who did not come from families of privilege or a position of privilege is that they're all pretty damn old and the majority of them created their empires well before pre-Reagen era Supply Side economics and Globalization.

So yeah. The wealthiest people on earth? Trust Fund Babies. If the millions of people born to poverty were the given same privileges as Bill Gates would they have built a computer empire? Hard to say, but there is a good chance that several, if not hundreds or thousands would have made it. On the other hand, if you strip Bill Gates of his contacts and privilege and toss him onto the streets of Calcutta, what will he become? Besides manure? So what's the difference maker? Work ethic? Nope. Intelligence? Nope. Privilege? Ding, Ding, Ding!



"the biggest advantage they've ever had"? What exactly is that?

- Are you serious? They have health advantages that their rich ancestors could not dream of obtaining, food and resource advantages that would dash the dreams of the greatest emperors of history, open information on nearly any topic imaginable and easy availability of it to those who can afford it. The best education in the history of the world, with developments in technology that make their lives better by the minute. They have a massive paid-for infrastructure that makes trade easier, safer and quicker than it has ever been in the history of the world. Plumbing, highways, clean water, hell, lets not even mention the collective effort against Tuberculosis, Polio and Malaria that has saved hundreds of millions, or the dams, dykes and environmental regulations and controls which have saved countless lives and averted countless disasters. And on top of that they have no real financial risk, they have safety net after safety net, privilege after privilege, they're given every possible advantage imaginable and all they can do is DEMAND MORE. They're beggars. They're leeches. They're ticks that have grown fat off the hard work of others. And they've squandered all of this opportunity at the expense of billions of people and the majority of them have nothing to show for it.



No one said some types of physical labor aren't incredibly challenging. The point is that it's not the only type of hard work. One doesn't have to be a coal miner to be a hard worker. It's also silly to say one is more "valuable" than the other.

No, it's not. Sorry. If I am student working on a project my work is not as valuable as a plumber or a water safety regulator, or a doctor. I'm not saving children from cancer or feeding the hungry, I'm not making sure the trains work or that the highways are maintained. I'm just a student. If somehow my work leads to a great innovation that changes lives forever, than it becomes more important obviously. But the fact that I could potentially help millions maybe/sorta doesn't actually stand up to the reality that there are people who's everyday work actually DOES help millions. There's no doubt to the value of education. But if I am simply a mediocre student working on another run of the mill essay or project, no, my work is not as significant or valuable as other people who help to keep the system working and create the infrastructure that allow me to have an education in the first place.

[Revolution starts with U]

New money is rich, not wealthy. You can ask old money this. They don't care about the 70b dollar bank account of Bill Gates, or his massive stock portfolio. They have enough of those two things, and know that at some point money to the individual becomes nothing but a symbol.
Old money owns land and factories, real things. They own wealth. They own control.
Rich != wealthy. That was the first bit of advice I recieved from the old man who tried to teach me to be a capitalist. :cool:

[RGacky3]

New money is rich, not wealthy. You can ask old money this. They don't care about the 70b dollar bank account of Bill Gates, or his massive stock portfolio. They have enough of those two things, and know that at some point money to the individual becomes nothing but a symbol.
Old money owns land and factories, real things. They own wealth. They own control.
Rich != wealthy. That was the first bit of advice I recieved from the old man who tried to teach me to be a capitalist. http://www.revleft.com/vb/personal-responsibility-t162492/revleft/smilies/001_cool.gif


Nowerdays it does, the CEO of Goldman Sachs is WAY more powerful than some wealthy guy that owns multiple factories.

[Revolution starts with U]

I doubt the CEO of GS is as powerful as the guy who owns the building, who almost definitely is partial owner of GS...

[RGacky3]

I bet the CEO of GS controls that guys money :), and takes a good cut out of it too, and I also bet that guy's companies are in debt to GS as well.

[Sputnik_1]

I know a whole bunch of people who, nonetheless they're actually a part of working class just as me, keep being preachy about "how is it up to ourselves to change your life and economical situation". You know, that kind of half hippies with a middle-class ideas filling the emptiness in their heads, that kind of people who buy books like "10 steps to become rich and successful" and such. Trying to have a healthy discussion with them is like hitting your head against the wall. Pointless and painful.

[ComradeMan]

If you "own money" you own paper, if you own one big pine tree you own enough to make a $1 billion in notes, but if you own the land that tree grows on, you really own something.... ;) It's all a big "house of cards"....

[kapitalyst]

But since you believe the facts will prove your point, lets look at a few of them care of Global Issues dot Org. [...]

I appreciate your statistics, and I'm sure they're pretty accurate. But you could have just said X-amount of people live in poverty, and we could have gotten all that. Poverty is the cause of all of those problems -- the root of it. My point was just that you exaggerated the problem of world hunger itself far beyond reality. :)

I care very deeply about those people, and I hope someday I can do more than just send them money. I want to actually go to Africa and India and other places and see the people and how they live. God willing, I hope I can someday build schools, health clinics, clean water wells and more. I currently support two charities in Vietnam (a communist country...imagine that) -- one which cares for lepers and very ill people, and another for the impoverished and elderly. My family and I support a humanitarian effort in Nicaragua as well, which focuses on the impoverished and food/water/education for the children. And I often give to some of the larger charities, like Child Fund and the Red Cross. I'm not an angel... but don't try to make me out to be a cold-hearted asshole who doesn't give a damn. I do give more than just "a damn". :lol:



Not at all. Your example is superficial and trite, you found one sentence out of an article on Wikipedia that you agreed with and ignored the rest because it didn't promote your worldview and your example is compartmentalized conveniently enough to ignore a thousand other factors that arise in the same situation.


Bullshit... ;) I found a critical statement at the very beginning of the article which gave an accurate statistic on world hunger, which disproved your exaggerated claims. And I did read the entire article... didn't ignore it. "Billions are starving" is simply not a true statement... no room for debate.



There is more than just food to discuss here. You forgot clean water (both for cleaning the food and the people eating it and drinking it), you forgot electricity to heat or properly prepare food, not to mention refrigeration or did you not know that people need these things? And do you really think poverty's only killer is starvation?

Well, we weren't discussing that. We were just discussing your initial claim, which you seem intent on distracting from. But very well, we can discuss this. Yes, these problems typically accompany hunger and hunger accompanies poverty. If you can't afford food you can't afford anything else. This is not surprising, it just logically follows.



That speaks volumes about your life experience. If anything I was going easy on you. None of your "evidence" points to any other reality other than what I proposed. Sorry. The real world does not work under the rules of mythical Hallmark quotations where "You can Do Anything If you Try".


No, it doesn't. You know nothing of my life experiences, save maybe bits and pieces you've picked up here and there. And when we're talking about "you can do anything if you try", we're talking about it in the context of the United States and other developed western nations, where... yes, YOU CAN. There are no places to work, little food, little water, no schools/universities, etc in the third world. So those people have virtually nothing to go on. I don't blame them for a thing. Here in America and the western world, there are very few excuses. Opportunity abounds here. Of the few legitimate excuses for failure and need of society's support are: A) mental illness B) severe illness C) handicap/disability D) old age F) natural disaster... There's very little left after that.

For instance, I saw an Occupy Wall Street protestor on CNBC today. She's about my age (22-25). She went to college and decided to major in some obscure discipline (can't remember what it was). She borrowed around $40,000 knowing she had no means to pay it back, and spent the money on things she didn't need. She thinks it actually wasn't her fault that she got into this situation and that her debt should just be magically wiped away. :rolleyes:



Please show me evidence that the poor are becoming billionaires overnight consistently. It's not there, it doesn't exist, it has NEVER existed. Exceptions to the rule are called exceptions for a reason.


That is not what I said. I NEVER said "the poor are becoming billionaires overnight". I said there are countless, consistent examples of people who have risen above the socioeconomic class they were born under. Millions of people have improved their financial and material situations drastically through being responsible, persistent and frugal.



The market is not free or fair, it is corrupt, it is a sham, it is a pyramid scheme. Capitalism is still a fixed game slanted towards privilege and nothing else. Work ethic, innovation, intelligence and talent have next nothing to do with the majority of financial success in the current capitalist society. You can preach the Wallstreet Ubermench fairy tale until you're blue in the face, it doesn't change REALITY.


Of course the market isn't free -- far from it. And it IS a fixed game. Government and their cronies have rigged the system to stomp out all challengers to their power. You think regulations are really hurting the "big boys"? Hardly... rarely... They hurt the small business owners, entrepreneurs and start ups and the middle and lower classes.



So those are the richest people on the planet. An overwhelming majority? Quite the contrary. But an interesting and significant factor to point out about all of the self-made billionaires who did not come from families of privilege or a position of privilege is that they're all pretty damn old and the majority of them created their empires well before pre-Reagen era Supply Side economics and Globalization.


Sigh... :rolleyes:

You've looked at nothing more than the very tip of the iceberg. When we talk about the "wealthiest people in the world", we're talking about the top several thousands of people. A recent Forbes article I read said that only 14% were heirs to fortunes. And it's no surprise that some of the top-most spots are occupied by wealthy heirs. Considering all other factors the same, one who starts with wealth can end up with more by doing the exact same thing.



So yeah. The wealthiest people on earth? Trust Fund Babies. If the millions of people born to poverty were the given same privileges as Bill Gates would they have built a computer empire? Hard to say, but there is a good chance that several, if not hundreds or thousands would have made it. On the other hand, if you strip Bill Gates of his contacts and privilege and toss him onto the streets of Calcutta, what will he become? Besides manure? So what's the difference maker? Work ethic? Nope. Intelligence? Nope. Privilege? Ding, Ding, Ding!


I doubt it. A lot of people come from a similar background as Bill Gates but don't succeed in such a way. He was a brilliant programmer and businessman. And he would've been #1 on the list had he not given away over 50% of his fortune to philanthropic causes already. Sure, if he was born in a third-world slum this could have never happened. No one is mocking the plight of those people though. But if I lost everything I have today, I could be back in business in a year or so. Second time around would be a breeze, since I already know what to do and how to do it. And I'm sure Gates, with vastly more experience than me, could do the same.



- Are you serious? They have health advantages that their rich ancestors could not dream of obtaining, food and resource advantages that would dash the dreams of the greatest emperors of history, open information on nearly any topic imaginable and easy availability of it to those who can afford it. The best education in the history of the world, with developments in technology that make their lives better by the minute. They have a massive paid-for infrastructure that makes trade easier, safer and quicker than it has ever been in the history of the world. Plumbing, highways, clean water, hell, lets not even mention the collective effort against Tuberculosis, Polio and Malaria that has saved hundreds of millions, or the dams, dykes and environmental regulations and controls which have saved countless lives and averted countless disasters. And on top of that they have no real financial risk, they have safety net after safety net, privilege after privilege, they're given every possible advantage imaginable and all they can do is DEMAND MORE. They're beggars. They're leeches. They're ticks that have grown fat off the hard work of others. And they've squandered all of this opportunity at the expense of billions of people and the majority of them have nothing to show for it.


Yeah, and most people in this world also have many more advantages than they ever did, if you're looking at it this way. YOU have access to nearly all these things. But my original statement stands. The wealthy had "the greatest advantage ever" in feudal times. Today, creating, maintaining and growing wealth is quite difficult. And again, you don't understand financial risk at all, obviously...

All of this "parasites and leeches" talk is just BS hate speech. Please, get over it. You act like there's a fixed amount of wealth and money in the world, which is completely untrue. And you consider it "parasitic" to sell products and services to people who want them? I'd be a "leech" if create some technological wonder and sold it all over the world? :rolleyes:



No, it's not. Sorry. If I am student working on a project my work is not as valuable as a plumber or a water safety regulator, or a doctor. I'm not saving children from cancer or feeding the hungry, I'm not making sure the trains work or that the highways are maintained. I'm just a student. If somehow my work leads to a great innovation that changes lives forever, than it becomes more important obviously. But the fact that I could potentially help millions maybe/sorta doesn't actually stand up to the reality that there are people who's everyday work actually DOES help millions. There's no doubt to the value of education. But if I am simply a mediocre student working on another run of the mill essay or project, no, my work is not as significant or valuable as other people who help to keep the system working and create the infrastructure that allow me to have an education in the first place.

My only point is that even a student works hard. I was not comparing the importance of some run-of-the-mill college essay to real-world labor (blue collar or white collar). I thought the example might hit home with many here who were or are students, who would acknowledge that "working hard" isn't restricted to digging a hole or driving nails. However, the hard work students do in their educational pursuits IS rather important. People have to be educated to keep the world moving. So it's wrong to marginalize the role and importance of a student too.

[kapitalyst]

Seeing as how Smaug kicked out all the industrious little people (dwarves) and stole their treasures... I would say that is a pretty apt metaphor :D

It is a good metaphor... It illuminates the similarity between on fantasy and another fantasy. :)

[RGacky3]

If you "own money" you own paper, if you own one big pine tree you own enough to make a $1 billion in notes, but if you own the land that tree grows on, you really own something.... http://www.revleft.com/vb/personal-responsibility-t162492/revleft/smilies/wink.gif It's all a big "house of cards"....


yes, philisophically, but we are talking about the real world capitalism now.

[The Teacher]

When a Wal-Mart employee complains about low pay, the answer is "You should work harder"

"But my boss won't give me more than 38 hours a week, so I have to work a second part time job to make ends meet."

"Then you should have gotten an education."

"I have a degree in IT, but so do a lot of people and there are only so many jos out there."

"Its not my fault you aren't smart enough to make it to the top."

"I don't want to be on top, I just want to make a decent living. Its obvious that I don't mind hard work and I'm smart, but none of that matters to either of my employers. It isn't their job to look out for me, its their job to keep labor costs low."

"You aren't ambitious enough. Anyone can move up in the world if they want to."

"I want to, but I work 60 hours a week so its kind of hard to do a lot of job searching. Plus I have to watch my kids while my wife goes to her job."

"You should save more money by cutting out luxuries."

"Like the gas I use to get to work or the food we eat?"

"You've had plenty of opportunities. Anybody can get a good job if they really want it."

"Then who would work at Walmart?"

The point is this. Can everyone get rich? Of course not. Can you have a company that is all CEO's and no workers? No.

So when the CEO decides to pay the employees minimum wage with no benefits in order to increase profits, whose fault is it when they have economic hardships?

If a CEO decides to outsource manufacturing to third-world child labor camps, who is creating the suffering?

Personal responsibility is something everyone should practice, but that isn't going to get you anywhere economically. If you are born to wealth you can network with wealthy people. If you are born middle class then you can network with those people. If everyone you know is busting their ass in a factory or service idustry, guess who you can ask for a job.

I once had a guest speaker at my college entrepreneur class who gave a great "anyone can live the dream" speech. I beleived it too. Right up to the part where she said, "I've worked with people who had nothing, literally nothing and they made it big. I'm talking about guys at the very bottom. People who just got out of grad school and barely managed to scrap up $100,000 dollars in start up money."

Whenever I talked to someone about getting financed, the first question was always "How much of your own money have you put into this idea?" About a $1,000 over the years. "How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you don't even believe in your own idea?" I do believe in it. I work very hard to make it real. "Then why won't you put more of your own money into this?" Because I had to scrap and skimp and make my family do without things just to get the $1,000. "Why don't you get money from your family and friends?" They don't have money. "Well if you can't get together at least $50,000 in your family and friends round, no one will even talk to you. Thanks for wasting my time."

Note that no one would even talk to me about the idea or my business plan. They wanted to know how much money I already had.

Did I give up on my dream? No. It has become a marginally productive side project and I no longer dedicate all of my time and spare money to it. My family is more important to me. Whats more, I decided that I actually wanted to contribute something to society, something that would do some amount of good for people around me and not just feed my own ego.

So don't sell me on some crap about anyone can make it. Many of the people who "make it" don't actually do anything valuable to society, they just enrich themselves. Not everyone invents new products or runs a company that makes things. A lot of those people just shuffle money around. Like 401k plans. People with real jobs put money in them and other people decide how to invest it. Those people get paid the same whether the work wins, loses, or breaks even.

[Bud Struggle]

Whenever I talked to someone about getting financed, the first question was always "How much of your own money have you put into this idea?" About a $1,000 over the years. "How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you don't even believe in your own idea?" I do believe in it. I work very hard to make it real. "Then why won't you put more of your own money into this?" Because I had to scrap and skimp and make my family do without things just to get the $1,000. "Why don't you get money from your family and friends?" They don't have money. "Well if you can't get together at least $50,000 in your family and friends round, no one will even talk to you. Thanks for wasting my time."

There are a BILLION excuses for failing. :crying:

You have to find a way. I wade my by working and my wife working for 17 years. She supported us and I reinvested all the money I made. She at times even cashed her check to pay the salaries of my employees when I had cash flow problems.

Really, that's the difference between people that make it and those that don't--some people go that extra mile and FIND a way to make things happen. The rest are just--could have beens. Nothing wrong with that, but that's way the way it goes. It's hard for everybody starting from the bottom--just some work the magic and MAKE things happen.

[ComradeMan]

There are a BILLION excuses for failing. :crying:

Excuses are for losers.... true...


You have to find a way. I wade my by working and my wife working for 17 years. She supported us and I reinvested all the money I made. She at times even cashed her check to pay the salaries of my employees when I had cash flow problems.

Mamma knows best... and everything in your wife's name... LOL!! Are you one of the people? ;)


Really, that's the difference between people that make it and those that don't--some people go that extra mile and FIND a way to make things happen. The rest are just--could have beens. Nothing wrong with that, but that's way the way it goes. It's hard for everybody starting from the bottom--just some work the magic and MAKE things happen.

Don't be so hard on people Bud, a lot of people DO get a raw deal....

[Revolution starts with U]

Why do you have to make it personal Bud? The guy is trying to say how hard he worked, how he saved, how he was doing anything he possibly could to try and make it happen and you have to come out with "well you just didn't try hard enough." What would you have prefered, him to go out and start robbing old ladys until he got the 50k he was looking for?

I mean, masturbation makes me feel better about myself too, but there is a place in this world for systemic rejection and pure dumb luck.

Pick your head up Bud, stop being so negative.

[Bud Struggle]

Why do you have to make it personal Bud? The guy is trying to say how hard he worked, how he saved, how he was doing anything he possibly could to try and make it happen and you have to come out with "well you just didn't try hard enough." What would you have prefered, him to go out and start robbing old ladys until he got the 50k he was looking for?

I mean, masturbation makes me feel better about myself too, but there is a place in this world for systemic rejection and pure dumb luck.

Pick your head up Bud, stop being so negative.

I was being positive. I was saying that he CAN make it. I made it personal because Teacher made it personal. I never said he didn't try hard enough. I implied (didn't outright say it) that there are always a myad of option to try further.

Rev--stop reading everything with your own slant. Read what actually is being written.

[Revolution starts with U]

No, sorry Bud, but it is clear what you were saying was "I made it and if you didn't it's because you didn't try as hard as me."

He didn't make it personal, other than about himself. He was saying "this is what I tried to do, and this is the shit I got for it." Maybe you took it personallybecause you are one of those people who say that, but that's your own problem. :)

[Judicator]

When a Wal-Mart employee complains about low pay, the answer is "You should work harder"

"But my boss won't give me more than 38 hours a week, so I have to work a second part time job to make ends meet."

"Then you should have gotten an education."

"I have a degree in IT, but so do a lot of people and there are only so many jos out there."

"Its not my fault you aren't smart enough to make it to the top."

"I don't want to be on top, I just want to make a decent living. Its obvious that I don't mind hard work and I'm smart, but none of that matters to either of my employers. It isn't their job to look out for me, its their job to keep labor costs low."

"You aren't ambitious enough. Anyone can move up in the world if they want to."

"I want to, but I work 60 hours a week so its kind of hard to do a lot of job searching. Plus I have to watch my kids while my wife goes to her job."

"You should save more money by cutting out luxuries."

"Like the gas I use to get to work or the food we eat?"

"You've had plenty of opportunities. Anybody can get a good job if they really want it."

"Then who would work at Walmart?"

The point is this. Can everyone get rich? Of course not. Can you have a company that is all CEO's and no workers? No.

Are you really saying that a majority of Walmart employees are college-educated, ambitious, adults with families? I don't doubt that some are, but I'd suspect that most are high school educated, young(er) people.

Also, you forgot "you shouldn't have had kids." Vasectomies are cheap, kids aren't. If a family of two adults both work at walmart 40 hours a week $8-10/hour (range ive seen for walmart average pay), for 50 weeks a year, they're pulling down 36k/year. After taxes thats probably 30k. With rents in cheaper areas at maybe $4k/year this seems quite liveable.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya! If you were unfortunate enough not to be as productive as me, you shouldn't be fulfilling your evolutionary duty! Jerks... :laugh:

Good luck to your kids trying to achieve anything in a world that systemically rejects you and them for not being smart and productive enough, according to their standards. :cool:

[Judicator]

Ya! If you were unfortunate enough not to be as productive as me, you shouldn't be fulfilling your evolutionary duty! Jerks... :laugh:

Evolutionary duty? Where the hell did you come up with that?


Good luck to your kids trying to achieve anything in a world that systemically rejects you and them for not being smart and productive enough, according to their standards.

It doesn't reject them, it pays them the value of their skills. This happens to be low, but so what?

[RGacky3]

It doesn't reject them, it pays them the value of their skills. This happens to be low, but so what?

Who decides the value of skills??? You really think trading CDOs is more valueble to society than plumbing?

[Judicator]

Who decides the value of skills??? You really think trading CDOs is more valueble to society than plumbing?

Individuals voting with their dollars and people getting education in certain fields determines the value of skills.

Firms that hire CDO traders pay them a lot more than plumbers, so yes.

[RGacky3]

Individuals voting with their dollars and people getting education in certain fields determines the value of skills.

Firms that hire CDO traders pay them a lot more than plumbers, so yes.

A, 1% of the "voters" have the vast majority of the "votes," also no one is paying based on the value to society, they are paying based on how much return you can get.

Obviously CDO traders being payed WAY WAY WAY more than plubmers show that the "value" system of capitalism makes no sense, but your sticking with it and saying CDO traders are more valueble to society than plumbers. :laugh:

[Judicator]

no one is paying based on the value to society, they are paying based on how much return you can get.

And high returns mean you're making something that people want... (i.e. value to society).


Obviously CDO traders being payed WAY WAY WAY more than plubmers show that the "value" system of capitalism makes no sense, but your sticking with it and saying CDO traders are more valueble to society than plumbers.

The average trader probably makes like 100-150k, the average plumber probably makes 25-40k. This isn't that large of a discrepancy.

Why doesn't it make sense that services which are scarce and generate income are highly valued?

[RGacky3]

And high returns mean you're making something that people want... (i.e. value to society).


So its true because its true ....


The average trader probably makes like 100-150k, the average plumber probably makes 25-40k. This isn't that large of a discrepancy.

Why doesn't it make sense that services which are scarce and generate income are highly valued?

If you took a vote, about what people value more, and what benefits society more and makes life better, a plumber or a CDO trader, do you REALLY think that the CDO trader would come up ahead?

[Judicator]

So its true because its true ....

No, it's true because what people want is what's valuable.


If you took a vote, about what people value more, and what benefits society more and makes life better, a plumber or a CDO trader, do you REALLY think that the CDO trader would come up ahead?

If you gave everyone $100,000 and let them buy stuff, the CDO trader would come out ahead. What people say they value and what they actually value can be completely different.

People (perhaps the majority) in some societies claimed that Jews make life worse and harm society, despite the fact that they offered valuable banking services to people that needed it when usury laws prohibited others from doing so.

[Jose Gracchus]

You guys have a lot more patience for endless and fruitless refutations of axiomatic reasoning ["people who make more money deserve it because by definition people who make money deserve it", ad nauseum] uttered by likely liars and assholes than I do. I think you deserve a round of applause.

[RGacky3]

If you gave everyone $100,000 and let them buy stuff, the CDO trader would come out ahead. What people say they value and what they actually value can be completely different.


If compensation was based on one person one vote, it would definately be the plumber.

CDO traders are juts making money from money, meaning your getting more money, not a commodity, not a good or service.

[TheGeekySocialist]

the last resort argument of an ignorant and arrogant swine who has no actual points to back up their view so just closes their ears and screams arrogant claptrap.

[Baseball]

If compensation was based on one person one vote, it would definately be the plumber.

CDO traders are juts making money from money, meaning your getting more money, not a commodity, not a good or service.


Why? As a rule of thumb, people rarely need the services of a plumber on a regular basis.
And if we are to accept the reasonings of socialists, the quality of the work of plumbers will increase under socialism, making their services less needed and thus less valuable.

As an aside, and I know it wasn't your comment, plumbers make far more than $40,000 a year. They can haul close to six figures depending upon their level of training and experience (ie skill)

[RGacky3]

Why? As a rule of thumb, people rarely need the services of a plumber on a regular basis.
And if we are to accept the reasonings of socialists, the quality of the work of plumbers will increase under socialism, making their services less needed and thus less valuable.


the quality of the work of plumbing has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism, I'm saying if put to a vote, more people need plumbers more than they need CDO traders.


As an aside, and I know it wasn't your comment, plumbers make far more than $40,000 a year. They can haul close to six figures depending upon their level of training and experience (ie skill)

yes many plumbers are in the middle class, but they arn't hedge fund managers (nor should they be, thats not the point).

[Revolution starts with U]

Evolutionary duty? Where the hell did you come up with that?



It doesn't reject them, it pays them the value of their skills. This happens to be low, but so what?

Their value is low as defined by the capitalist. I wonder what that value would be placed at were ethically decided (meaning democratically)? :thumbup1:

(Evolutionary duty; you were only born to have children and hope they have traits that help them survive and have children.)

[ZeroNowhere]

If the alternatives are being a could-have-been or being Bud Struggle, it's understandable that poverty is still so frequent.

[Revolution starts with U]

Individuals voting with their dollars and people getting education in certain fields determines the value of skills.

Firms that hire CDO traders pay them a lot more than plumbers, so yes.
Voting with your dollars gives 1 person not just more votes, but exponentially more votes than some other people. Voting with your dollars means nothing.



And high returns mean you're making something that people want... (i.e. value to society).

Ya, the people who have all the money...



The average trader probably makes like 100-150k, the average plumber probably makes 25-40k. This isn't that large of a discrepancy.

Why doesn't it make sense that services which are scarce and generate income are highly valued?

Why doesn't it make sense to make this value democratically decided.

If compensation was based on one person one vote, it would definately be the plumber.

CDO traders are juts making money from money, meaning your getting more money, not a commodity, not a good or service.

I would have to disagree. People will still value smart work over hard work. But not nearly as much. An investor might be a different story. But for the plumber, and his boss, I am sure the discrpancy would not be so high.

[Judicator]

If compensation was based on one person one vote, it would definately be the plumber.

So you think compensation should be a popularity contest? This would show that they like plumbers more, not that plumbers ultimately provide them with more valuable goods and services.


CDO traders are juts making money from money, meaning your getting more money, not a commodity, not a good or service.

Since the economic effects of CDO traders are complex, let's consider a simple example of someone who "makes money from money:" a regular banker.

Bankers match savers with borrowers. Without a banking system, savers would have to individually spend time finding borrows to take their money and use it. So if I wanted to save $1,000 and get a return, I'd have to hunt around and find someone who wanted to borrow $1,000. This is extremely inefficient.


Their value is low as defined by the capitalist. I wonder what that value would be placed at were ethically decided (meaning democratically)? :thumbup1:

I also wonder why you're conflating economic value and ethical value.


(Evolutionary duty; you were only born to have children and hope they have traits that help them survive and have children.)

Why is it a moral duty? I was born because my parents wanted kids. There's no moral justification beyond some kind of biblical "be fruitful and multiply" thing.


You guys have a lot more patience for endless and fruitless refutations of axiomatic reasoning ["people who make more money deserve it because by definition people who make money deserve it", ad nauseum] uttered by likely liars and assholes than I do. I think you deserve a round of applause.

Do these forums permit/encourage cheerleading?

[Revolution starts with U]

I also wonder why you're conflating economic value and ethical value.

That's a dodge. I am talking about the value as it is decided; by money, or by democracy.



Why is it a moral duty? I was born because my parents wanted kids. There's no moral justification beyond some kind of biblical "be fruitful and multiply" thing.

And that's a strawman. Who said anything about it being a moral duty? But it is, in evolutionary terms, what anything was born for.




Do these forums permit/encourage cheerleading?

Jealous? :cool:

[Judicator]

That's a dodge. I am talking about the value as it is decided; by money, or by democracy.

No, it's not. You're still conflating two senses of value. Prices cannot decide moral value any more than democracies can decide economic value.


And that's a strawman. Who said anything about it being a moral duty? But it is, in evolutionary terms, what anything was born for.

A non-moral duty? What do you think it is, then? A legal duty? A duty based on etiquette?

There's no such thing as "duty" in evolutionary terms. People have kids. This is a natural fact, not a duty.



Jealous?


Nope, was just wondering.

[Jose Gracchus]

Why do RevLeft's (purported) rich dudes and property owners spend so much time talking shit in a meaningless net-ghetto?

[RGacky3]

I would have to disagree. People will still value smart work over hard work. But not nearly as much. An investor might be a different story. But for the plumber, and his boss, I am sure the discrpancy would not be so high.

CDO trading is smart but it does'nt help society AT ALL, I obviously think a doctor would get paid more than a plumber, but thats because he's very helpful to society.


So you think compensation should be a popularity contest? This would show that they like plumbers more, not that plumbers ultimately provide them with more valuable goods and services.


Basically, a popularity contest means democracy. Maybe they like them more because they provited them with more valuble goods and services for them.


Since the economic effects of CDO traders are complex, let's consider a simple example of someone who "makes money from money:" a regular banker.

Bankers match savers with borrowers. Without a banking system, savers would have to individually spend time finding borrows to take their money and use it. So if I wanted to save $1,000 and get a return, I'd have to hunt around and find someone who wanted to borrow $1,000. This is extremely inefficient.


Great argument, why would'nt people compensate that if it was put to a democratic vote?

[Revolution starts with U]

No, it's not. You're still conflating two senses of value. Prices cannot decide moral value any more than democracies can decide economic value.

Voting with your dollars is an ethical position as well. Its ethics are that money > people




A non-moral duty? What do you think it is, then? A legal duty? A duty based on etiquette?

There's no such thing as "duty" in evolutionary terms. People have kids. This is a natural fact, not a duty.

Semantics dude. Evolutionary duty, role, whatever. Its amazing you think people should not be able to do what evolution wants them to do, merely because they are not as smart and productive as "you," according to modern societies' standards.

[ComradeMan]

Semantics dude. Evolutionary duty, role, whatever. Its amazing you think people should not be able to do what evolution wants them to do, merely because they are not as smart and productive as "you," according to modern societies' standards.

Sorry friend, but wtf is "evolutionary duty"? :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

Why do RevLeft's (purported) rich dudes and property owners spend so much time talking shit in a meaningless net-ghetto?

It's like when sombody asked Bach why he wrote music, he said he did it: "for the greater glory of God and because I like to do it."

The reason works for me posting here, too. :)

Either that or it's my evolutionary duty. :D

[Revolution starts with U]

Sorry friend, but wtf is "evolutionary duty"? :lol:

To procreate. Life only exists and evolves because beings procreate, and some of those procreations live. The ones that live more, if this translates into having more children, will overtake the population and begin to look like the normal being.

Evolution, bro :cool: If you don't like the term duty, replace it with role. That is our role to play in evoluiton; to have children.

[ComradeMan]

Evolution, bro :cool: If you don't like the term duty, replace it with role. That is our role to play in evoluiton; to have children.

Well that works a bit better- it sounded like you were speaking of "karmic debt" which is a concept in some eastern belief systems. Fine by me, but not very materialistic.;)