NationStates Jolt Archive

Totally inaccurate. To those of you who support this concept, how do you explain away the success of so many immigrants?

What do most immigrants share? They are hard-working and want to make a better life for themselves, otherwise they probably wouldn't have emigrated from the country of their origin.

Immigrants start from a MUCH worse point than people born into supposed poverty here. What passes for poverty here is often well-off in other nations, yet immigrants seem to do so much better than these people who blame their life on where and to whom they were born to.

I've always stated it, and I shall stand by it until proven wrong.

People who are poor in this society are because...
a) Incompetant
b) Lazy
c) Made poor choices
d) Some combination of the above

And a FEW small small number who are truly just the victims of bad luck.

So... anyways, aside from me running off on a tangent, what do you have to say when we compare immigrants and those born into "poverty" here?

American poor are lazy substance abusers. If I had my way I would allow more mexicans and chinese &ct. into the country, and send our own underclass back in return.

I have a friend who came over from china when she was 19 with nothing and didn't even speak english. She's now a millionaire.

Or incapable of work (i.e. disabled).

As much as you don't think that idea is right, there is truth behind it. People who are born poor generally follow this pattern:

They are born into a poor family (usually in very small rural town or inner city)
They can't get a good education
Because they lack education, they don't get a good job
Becuase they don't have a good job, they remain poor.

Now, if we restructered the educational system and actually made it a good one, we'd have a real chance at removing a good chunk of the poor class. Those who would be left would be the lazy, the disabled, and the people that made bad choices.

Or incapable of work (i.e. disabled).

As much as you don't think that idea is right, there is truth behind it. People who are born poor generally follow this pattern:

They are born into a poor family (usually in very small rural town or inner city)
They can't get a good education
Because they lack education, they don't get a good job
Becuase they don't have a good job, they remain poor.

Now, if we restructered the educational system and actually made it a good one, we'd have a real chance at removing a good chunk of the poor class. Those who would be left would be the lazy, the disabled, and the people that made bad choices.

Shhhhh. No way is it not poor peoples' fault. Shut up and blame them like the rest of us.

Everything comes down to education.

Or incapable of work (i.e. disabled).

As much as you don't think that idea is right, there is truth behind it. People who are born poor generally follow this pattern:

They are born into a poor family (usually in very small rural town or inner city)
They can't get a good education
Because they lack education, they don't get a good job
Becuase they don't have a good job, they remain poor.

Now, if we restructered the educational system and actually made it a good one, we'd have a real chance at removing a good chunk of the poor class. Those who would be left would be the lazy, the disabled, and the people that made bad choices.
You are right about those who are disabled. But poor immigrants also can not afford a good education. In fact, they usually have to have more than Americans do. Yet they are able to become successful.

Depends. It's not true in all cases. In my early youth I went to a public school that had an extremely high proportion of immigrants...I can only recall one friend, who was a Muslim, African I think, that was wealthy...most of the others were barely middle class despite their parents working extremely long hours. It seems to hold true that most are extremely hardworking, but again, only a minority manage to become wealthy. A local chinese family I know runs a local convenience store - enterprising and hardworking, yes, but they live in a two bedroom unit and aren't going anywhere. From personal experience, those that become wealthy are the minority.

You are right about those who are disabled. But poor immigrants also can not afford a good education. In fact, they usually have to have more than Americans do. Yet they are able to become successful.

Poor immigrants tend to come from places where public education is better than the U.S.'s. That is, except for Mexico.

Or incapable of work (i.e. disabled).

As much as you don't think that idea is right, there is truth behind it. People who are born poor generally follow this pattern:

They are born into a poor family (usually in very small rural town or inner city)
They can't get a good education
Because they lack education, they don't get a good job
Becuase they don't have a good job, they remain poor.

Now, if we restructered the educational system and actually made it a good one, we'd have a real chance at removing a good chunk of the poor class. Those who would be left would be the lazy, the disabled, and the people that made bad choices.

I counted incapable of work under unfortunate. However, today disabled is too broadly defined. If you don't want to work because you apparently suffer from some "mental disability" that makes you lazy, I don't give a damn. Now if it's a legitimate disability... like they were born with deformed limbs or something... that's different and deserving of aid. However, those are a very very small minority of those who use social welfare.

As to your pattern:
I suppose the education systems in Iraq and in China during the cultural revolution (when education was seen as an evil thing and education beyond rudimentary skills was supressed in case you didn't know) are better than those of the poorer areas here? (I'm actually thinking of people I know, my parents both grew up in China during the cultural revolution, and a friend of mine's parents grew up in Iraq, and he was born there too, both our families are now middle-upper class).

And the rest is irrelevant due to this.

You didn't really answer the theme though, if people are poor due to their backgrounds, explain immigrants?

Depends. It's not true in all cases. In my early youth I went to a public school that had an extremely high proportion of immigrants...I can only recall one friend, who was a Muslim, African I think, that was wealthy...most of the others were barely middle class despite their parents working extremely long hours. It seems to hold true that most are extremely hardworking, but again, only a minority manage to become wealthy. A local chinese family I know runs a local convenience store - enterprising and hardworking, yes, but they live in a two bedroom unit and aren't going anywhere. From personal experience, those that become wealthy are the minority.

Not necessarily wealthy, but those immigrants, are they on the welfare system? Probably not (most of them anyways). Are they supporting themselves? Supporting their children so their children will have the opportunities to go higher up in life and become wealthy? Probably.

Not saying immigrants become wealthy, but saying they can support themselves in decent lives without social welfare.

Poor immigrants tend to come from places where public education is better than the U.S.'s. That is, except for Mexico.

Such as Iraq, or China during the cultural revolution?

Poor immigrants tend to come from places where public education is better than the U.S.'s. That is, except for Mexico.
And the other parts of South America. And those from eastern European nations. And most of Africa. And the Middle East.

It doesn't matter what wealth class you or born into, the rich will always be the minority, although if you are born rich you will probably stay rich. Unless your stupid or to generous for your own good. Poor people generally stay poor, maybe not as poor as thier parents, but still poor.

Such as Iraq, or China during the cultural revolution?

Just a bit of an unfair comparison there. You're comparing the modern U.S. educational system to foreign systems that have not been used in some time. If you want to do that, why don't I just say that Iraq used to be the center of all knowledge and cultre and that nothing can ever compare?

Lets use standards of comparison here at least.

The modern Chinese system is far superior the U.S. system. Iraq doesn't have a system because of a nice little war over there that destroyed just about everything. They did have a very good education system, it was just only for men though.

I counted incapable of work under unfortunate. However, today disabled is too broadly defined. If you don't want to work because you apparently suffer from some "mental disability" that makes you lazy, I don't give a damn.

I have a good friend that wants to find work, but he is schizophrenic, prone to episodes, and most employers won't touch him. Is he lazy and undeserving of welfare too?


Not necessarily wealthy, but those immigrants, are they on the welfare system? Probably not (most of them anyways). Are they supporting themselves? Supporting their children so their children will have the opportunities to go higher up in life and become wealthy? Probably.

Not saying immigrants become wealthy, but saying they can support themselves in decent lives without social welfare.

I was really young (I moved from that city and lost contact when I was 9), so i'm not sure whether they were on welfare. But looking back, they were definitely on the poverty borderline at least.

But you're talking about the "success" of most immigrants here. I don't see it. They were getting by, but weren't at all wealthy.

And those from eastern European nations.

Eastern European nations had excellent education and literacy rates, if nothing else.

I have a good friend that wants to find work, but he is schizophrenic, prone to episodes, and most employers won't touch him. Is he lazy and undeserving of welfare too?

Depends, does he have a genuine disability? I don't know your friend so obviously you know better than I the extent of it. If it's something ridiculous like ADD (which I don't even believe is a real disease... look up stuff about ADD fraud if you've never heard the idea) then no I don't care. If he's truly schizophrenic and that truly renders him unable to work, then he falls under the category of the few unfortunates who do truly deserve to be helped doesn't he?

But you're talking about the "success" of most immigrants here. I don't see it. They were getting by, but weren't at all wealthy.


Well I can't really speak for where you live, but where I am right now, nearly every (about 9 out of 10) person I know who is the son/daughter of a first generation immigrant, or is a first generation immigrant themselves (mostly from China, although a few from middle east and other places) live AT LEAST above the poverty line,aren't on welfare, and most are ABOVE that. My parents combined make over 100k/year, both first generation immigrants, neither of them ever went to high school past grade 9 in China during the cultural revolution. My friend's parents are from Iraq, not exactly a hotspot of education either, I can cite other examples too. Maybe 4/5 never did use the welfare system either.

How broadly are you defining success exactly? I'm defining it as supporting themselves with a decent life, basically they are happy with what they have, and they can raise their children in an environment where their children can reach the top (basically born poor ---> middle, born middle ---> upper)

Just a bit of an unfair comparison there. You're comparing the modern U.S. educational system to foreign systems that have not been used in some time. If you want to do that, why don't I just say that Iraq used to be the center of all knowledge and cultre and that nothing can ever compare?

Lets use standards of comparison here at least.

The modern Chinese system is far superior the U.S. system. Iraq doesn't have a system because of a nice little war over there that destroyed just about everything. They did have a very good education system, it was just only for men though.

Not really unfair. I'm comparing people of the same age and such. Say a 40 year old man born and raised here, vs a 40 year old immigrant from say china. During the cultural revolution the education in China was absolute shit. What I'm saying is, how come that immigrant who had a significantly worse education and significantly worse living conditions growing up than that 40 year old man born here into the American standards of "poverty" (which btw, would be considered luxurious by comparison)?

Wow I think I totally mangled the grammar in that paragraph, it's getting late. Hopefully you can decipher what I said.

I'm going to go to bed, I'll reply tomorrow to whatever.

People are rich or poor or 'averagely wealthy' because in application that is an inherent trait of a cooperative competitive human economic society.

Depends, does he have a genuine disability? I don't know your friend so obviously you know better than I the extent of it. If it's something ridiculous like ADD (which I don't even believe is a real disease... look up stuff about ADD fraud if you've never heard the idea) then no I don't care. If he's truly schizophrenic and that truly renders him unable to work, then he falls under the category of the few unfortunates who do truly deserve to be helped doesn't he?

No, it's not ADD. He's a quiet bloke and it just sort-of hit him one night (reaction to anti-depressants) and hasn't been quite the same since. He gets by, but can only find casual work and people aren't willing to take him on for an apprenticeship. So he'll need the welfare system later in life.


Well I can't really speak for where you live, but where I am right now, nearly every (about 9 out of 10) person I know who is the son/daughter of a first generation immigrant, or is a first generation immigrant themselves (mostly from China, although a few from middle east and other places) live AT LEAST above the poverty line, and aren't on welfare. Maybe 4/5 never did use the welfare system either.

How broadly are you defining success exactly?

I'm defining success as working less than 12 hours a day, preferably with family, and living in more than a 2 bedroom unit.

These people were mostly Chinese/Indian and actually, its mostly the same where I live now. They may be above requiring welfare (but most people who have a job in western nations are, as a result of minimum wage laws) but it wouldn't be the most comfortable and carefree existance.

First, define "wealthy."

Second, understand that in a pure capitalistic society, for someone to become rich, several others must be poor.

Lastly, understand that hard work and perserverence will give you nothing more then a hard job with labor.




I have yet to hear of someone who grew up poor, became rich, then spoke out against wealfare. Why is that?

I have yet to hear of someone who grew up poor, became rich, then spoke out against wealfare. Why is that?
Maybe you do not listen very well? ;)
I have heard both opinions from wealthy families. Some climb up the ladder and are against those that want free money. Others climb the ladder and are for handing out money to the poor.

If you don't want to work because you apparently suffer from some "mental disability" that makes you lazy, I don't give a damn. Now if it's a legitimate disability... like they were born with deformed limbs or something... that's different and deserving of aid. However, those are a very very small minority of those who use social welfare.

so a person with an iq of 75 is lazy and unable to work.

idiot.

mental disabilities are just as real as physical ones.

so a person with an iq of 75 is lazy and unable to work.

idiot.

mental disabilities are just as real as physical ones.
Why are they unable to work with an IQ of 75?

Why are they unable to work with an IQ of 75?

because they lack the mental capacity to do anything except sit there and stare at a wall. Its called a vegeitative state.

Wealth is subjective here.

But what I would consider poor is those that don't need to depend on the government to feed them.

I think those born poor can always work themselves out of poverty. Just takes alot of determination to always improve and succeed in life. If it doesn't get better for you, at least you can give better hope to your children. (Which hopefully you don't get like 7 children and screw it up).

One of the major problems about poor people, is education and have too many damn children!

because they lack the mental capacity to do anything except sit there and stare at a wall. Its called a vegeitative state.

Not at the IQ of 75. :p

They can at least do easy things, like carrying furniture around and clean toilets.

Why are they unable to work with an IQ of 75?
well, they can work. they can't really do anything major though.

there's a place down the street from me that's basically a community centre for the mentally challenged. they give them easy work (i'm sure it doesn't pay that well better than minimum wage i bet) basically to keep them busy and make them feel like they're contributing... they can't really work to the point of becoming rich and without such programs and/or welfare, they probably wouldnt' get anything more than minimum wage and eek out a very meagre existence.

because they lack the mental capacity to do anything except sit there and stare at a wall. Its called a vegeitative state.
I thought a 75 would be a border-line deficiency. They would not be a vegetable and most of those would be capable of some type of work.

I have no doubt that people with mental disabilities should get welfare. But saying that someone is incapable of doing anything because their IQ is low is questionable.

Second, understand that in a pure capitalistic society, for someone to become rich, several others must be poor.

Several? I expect the number is quite a bit higher than several. For every one person that makes it to truly "rich" status you must have at least tens, if not hundreds, of "poor" and another ten to twenty that will never get above "middle-class" status. Opportunities exist, but having exigent circumstances (nepotism, good-fortune, a stronger drive to succeed, being more willing to put ethics aside or use others around them to succeed -- whatever) will put these individuals ahead of the ones who just work hard and keep their nose to the proverbial grindstone.


Lastly, understand that hard work and perserverence will give you nothing more then a hard job with labor.


Exactly. To truly reach that "next level" of financial success you have to do more than just work hard and keep on keeping on. Rarely does this alone get anyone anywhere in buisness except a low to mid level job with a 40-50K year salary, if they're lucky. Plenty never get out of that 20-30k a year range.

But "poor" and "rich", as peviously mentioned, don't just equate to monetary status. A person can be just getting by financially but still be rich in friendships, family, personal joy/satisfaction of life, and a variety of other qualifiers. All too often, "rich" and "poor" are only seen from a material point of view in this country. Money and the things it can purchase are great and they can make life easier, but it's not the be-all end-all of life.

Also, coming from material and monetarily less advantaged cultures, immigrants are able to get by with siginficantly less on their way up the ladder thus giving them an additional advantage over those who are born into the American culture. But, in closing, I have noticed that many Americans seem to have some sense of God-given entitlement that immigrants do not share. This isn't universal among Americans, but it does exist and is definately a detrement to their chances of success.

Yeah, immigrants can survive without needing air-con, handphones, television, and computers ya know. :)

that is another thing. immigrants are willing to do any work.

hell, here if you don't want to put up with an agency, no problem, they've got 20 guys fresh off the boat willing to take your position. people who will put up with terrible working conditions, long hours, not too much pay, no health insurance (other than what the government gives) et c.

but again, this allows for scraping by more or less. well, not too bad if you're only supporting yourself on the paycheque. making around $400 a week is enough to pay rent, food, clothes... not really enough to get rich off of though.

but again, this allows for scraping by more or less. well, not too bad if you're only supporting yourself on the paycheque. making around $400 a week is enough to pay rent, food, clothes... not really enough to get rich off of though.
Not enough to get rich off, no. But it does allow them to get by until they can adjust, prove work experience, and then find better work.

Haha lets not talk about people with an IQ of 75 not being able to get work, look at George W. Bush - not quite in triple figures but he's the most powerful man on earth. Says a lot about the electorate really...

Social inequality, as previously stated, is a necessary part of capitalism. When someone starts up a profit-making business, they employ people as cheaply as they can in order to drive down wage costs. If they have captured a niche market, they make millions but they still pay the workers nearly nothing (in the vast majority of cases) conveniently ignoring the fact that without the workers to do the crap jobs, they wouldn't be so rich. Look at companies like Nike, Adidas, KMart etc. They ALL source their shit jobs from places like China, Indonesia etc and pay the workers absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing (no more than about 18 cents hourly usually). So..logically you have Phil Knight - a rich man who owns a massive shoeshop, and then the hundreds of thousands of dreadfully paid employees.

Ok so moving on. There is the right-wing idea that those people in said countries, and in first world nations too, that work these pathetic jobs do so because of their own failures and weaknesses. This is true - many are illeducated (indeed, this is why the companies know that they can pay them such low wages), and are so desperate for work that they are not in a position to rebel against any employer.

Looking at the source, ie where these people come from - the ones that have been called the "under class", you will find most of them being from inner-city districts, often in poor and deprived neighbourhoods or out in the countryside in pretty shocking rural environments too. These people are born into a culture that does not encourage study on the whole, has so little money that the kids are expected to leave school when they can in order to financially contribute, and the whole process of further education etc is looked down upon. When these people leave their time in schooling, after however many years, they are faced with few decisions and are forced to go into manual labour jobs, or unskilled professions with not chance of promotion or any real prospects of work.

There are those, however, that don't work at all because they can't be arsed. Here in Britain we have a semi-welfare state in which everyone is entitled to money from the government, enough to live on and get by. A Conservative MP (right-wing party) lived on the base benefits for a week, and came out of it saying how awful the living standard was. Hard-working people who have the self respect and mentality to look for any job wouldn't ever wish to live on the benefits, they strive for something more. My beef is that the working class, who perform the unskilled and hard labour aspects of our job society, will always be paid less than the fatcats at the top who happened to strike lucky - I know which job I'd rather do out of an office manager or a coal miner.

And of course rich people are going to complain about the government giving money to the poor. It's their money that they're giving! And rich people don't tend to have much morality where money is concerned, that's why they're able to get rich in the first place, really.

that is another thing. immigrants are willing to do any work.

hell, here if you don't want to put up with an agency, no problem, they've got 20 guys fresh off the boat willing to take your position. people who will put up with terrible working conditions, long hours, not too much pay, no health insurance (other than what the government gives) et c.

but again, this allows for scraping by more or less. well, not too bad if you're only supporting yourself on the paycheque. making around $400 a week is enough to pay rent, food, clothes... not really enough to get rich off of though.


$400 A WEEK!!! Damn, I'd love to be making $400 a week. Try about $275 after taxes.

I need to point out something else here to all you folks talking about a good education being the ticket to the good life. Let's qualify that. A good education (at least aMasters degree these days) in the RIGHT degree. If you get any kind of Liberal Arts degree without earning at least a Masters, pretty much count on never making more than 60K a year and this only after ten or fifteen years fighting your way over every other schmuck trying to climb up that ladder.

You need the right Degree AND, much more importantly, the right contacts so once you have that degree you can get the right starting job. I've known plenty of people over the years with a college degree (even at the masters or PhD level) who are waiting tables, tending bar, or working in some other service industry job.

A lot of the poster's to these threads seem to turn out to be fairly young (under thirty). Just how many of you out there have actually graduated from college? With a major in what? How ya doing financially?

Whats the minimum you have to earn before you have to start paying taxes in US?

Whats the minimum you have to earn before you have to start paying taxes in US?

You have taxes and other money's taken out of your paycheck no matter what you make (variable depending on the number of deductions you claim - also, see below), but you can get it all back when you file your yearly taxes if you make less than about seven thousand dollars a year. Again, there are variables a person can use to help raise this amount.

The other option is to work off the books for someone who is willing to risk getting in trouble with the IRS. But this can cause serious legal and financial problems if you get caught.


Part of the reason the government takes that money out of every paycheck is they are able to use the money until they have to give it back (or not). Crafty bastards the IRS.

American poor are lazy substance abusers. If I had my way I would allow more mexicans and chinese &ct. into the country, and send our own underclass back in return.

I have a friend who came over from china when she was 19 with nothing and didn't even speak english. She's now a millionaire.
Well, I'm not sure I would go that far, but I do think that if you're too lazy to get a job, you should be charged more for your keep, not given those handouts that they oh-so-hilariously call "benefits".

Well, I'm not sure I would go that far, but I do think that if you're too lazy to get a job, you should be charged more for your keep, not given those handouts that they oh-so-hilariously call "benefits".


Don't forget that there are lots of little jobs that need doing around the place, and millions on the public dole. If we have to feed and clothe them, we could at least put them to work doing something productive.

Maybe the government could "rent" them out to private industry.

Don't forget that there are lots of little jobs that need doing around the place, and millions on the public dole. If we have to feed and clothe them, we could at least put them to work doing something productive.

Maybe the government could "rent" them out to private industry.
What about bringing back the workhouses? Obviously we couldn't call them that anymore, because they used to be so cruel and unsanitary. But we could adapt the concept to work in modern society. They could be used to build equipment for the military. Better still, if they don't want to work, and are under, say, 60, they should be fit enough to fight for the world's freedom.

Don't forget that there are lots of little jobs that need doing around the place, and millions on the public dole. If we have to feed and clothe them, we could at least put them to work doing something productive.

Maybe the government could "rent" them out to private industry.


Actually, that's a role prisons have been filling for quite some time now. Even more so with the advent of privately run prisons. You are aware of the prisoners who are doing customer service call center work for airlines, among other jobs where convicted felons are taking personal and financial information from unknowing callers? That's just whacky!

Actually, that's a role prisons have been filling for quite some time now. Even more so with the advent of privately run prisons. You are aware of the prisoners who are doing customer service call center work for airlines, among other jobs where convicted felons are taking personal and financial information from unknowing callers? That's just whacky!
No, I didn't realise that. Good thing too. My only question is: why didn't anyone tell us? Bushy would have won by an even bigger margin if he'd advertized that fact.

What about bringing back the workhouses? Obviously we couldn't call them that anymore, because they used to be so cruel and unsanitary. But we could adapt the concept to work in modern society. They could be used to build equipment for the military. Better still, if they don't want to work, and are under, say, 60, they should be fit enough to fight for the world's freedom.

It's a know fact that the welfare poor are too lazy to make good soldiers. But we could use them in some type of cannon fodder role I suspect.

As to the olde time workhouses being unsanitary, I think we all know that it was simply a by product of the unhygenic nature of the poor themselves. (Imagine not wanting to clean up were you live, a sign of idleness if ever there was one.)

My prefered course of action would be to put the poor to work in some of the more hazardous jobs. This has the added benefit of weeding their lazy seed out of the gene-pool too.

Actually, that's a role prisons have been filling for quite some time now. Even more so with the advent of privately run prisons. You are aware of the prisoners who are doing customer service call center work for airlines, among other jobs where convicted felons are taking personal and financial information from unknowing callers? That's just whacky!

I see where you are going with this. Make being poor a crime. Brilliant. Why didn't I think of that!!!!!

Now, that, is officer thinking Sir.

It's a know fact that the welfare poor are too lazy to make good soldiers. But we could use them in some type of cannon fodder role I suspect.

As to the olde time workhouses being unsanitary, I think we all know that it was simply a by product of the unhygenic nature of the poor themselves. (Imagine not wanting to clean up were you live, a sign of idleness if ever there was one.)

My prefered course of action would be to put the poor to work in some of the more hazardous jobs. This has the added benefit of weeding their lazy seed out of the gene-pool too.
Mining would be good - our coal is so cheap we undercut most other countries anyway, but we'd make an even bigger profit if we dispensed with all the expensive machinery and used manual labour instead.

Going back to the army though - of course I wasn't suggesting they do anything too technical - they'd be too lazy to learn and make a mistake anyway (we have enough lazy soldiers killing their own comrades as it is).

I was more thinking about matching the terrorists' tactics - if they blow themselves up for targetted attacks, I say we beat them at their own game, and send some of our less worthy citizens their way, with a few pounds of semtex strapped to them.

No, I didn't realise that. Good thing too. My only question is: why didn't anyone tell us? Bushy would have won by an even bigger margin if he'd advertized that fact.


Do a google search for:

Privatized Prison Labor used by Corporations

I got back 47,000 hits. An intersesting one was:

http://www.markswatson.com/Page1.htm

Here's an excerpt from that page:

Prisoners have become a valuable commodity and an increasing demand for them and their hard work is a key issue in the debate. The increasingly unconstitutional nature of our legal system (Supreme Court rulings included), make it far easier, using the law to obtain workers which are paid very low wages. The issue is an important one, as many of the nations largest corporations are now hopping onto the the prison labor bandwagon. Boeing for example uses prison labor in the making of its aircraft. Boeing, having made significant cuts in its work force in just about every area but has actually increased its work force in two areas 1)China and 2)Washington State Reformatory (WSR) in Monroe, Washington. The losers, it seems, are not only the poor, who are unable to afford competent legal representation to keep them out of the prison system, but the American workers who do not know the true nature of the beast. The nature of the system has two groups who are being victimized by the same system at odds with one another. White skilled workers who are losing their jobs to prison inmates in China and America, and minorities, who are being incarcerated for victimless crimes (of whom many guilt is questionable) are used as low paid labor in corporate factories for greater profit. This is all being done in a legal system that is calling, perhaps not coincidentally, for longer and longer sentences for most crimes.

Do a google search for:

Privatized Prison Labor used by Corporations

I got back 47,000 hits. An intersesting one was:

http://www.markswatson.com/Page1.htm

Here's an excerpt from that page:

Prisoners have become a valuable commodity and an increasing demand for them and their hard work is a key issue in the debate. The increasingly unconstitutional nature of our legal system (Supreme Court rulings included), make it far easier, using the law to obtain workers which are paid very low wages. The issue is an important one, as many of the nations largest corporations are now hopping onto the the prison labor bandwagon. Boeing for example uses prison labor in the making of its aircraft. Boeing, having made significant cuts in its work force in just about every area but has actually increased its work force in two areas 1)China and 2)Washington State Reformatory (WSR) in Monroe, Washington. The losers, it seems, are not only the poor, who are unable to afford competent legal representation to keep them out of the prison system, but the American workers who do not know the true nature of the beast. The nature of the system has two groups who are being victimized by the same system at odds with one another. White skilled workers who are losing their jobs to prison inmates in China and America, and minorities, who are being incarcerated for victimless crimes (of whom many guilt is questionable) are used as low paid labor in corporate factories for greater profit. This is all being done in a legal system that is calling, perhaps not coincidentally, for longer and longer sentences for most crimes.
Liberal pinko rhetoric. Note the sentence I've put in bold. Why can't the poor afford representation? Because they're too lazy to earn the money for it. Even if, by some stroke of luck, they bought a winning lottery ticket, and had the money, they'd be too lazy to get representation anyway. And people who don't understand the system, don't understand it because they're too lazy and stupid to read about it.

Longer and longer sentences? Too bloody right.

You need the right Degree AND, much more importantly, the right contacts so once you have that degree you can get the right starting job. I've known plenty of people over the years with a college degree (even at the masters or PhD level) who are waiting tables, tending bar, or working in some other service industry job.

A lot of the poster's to these threads seem to turn out to be fairly young (under thirty). Just how many of you out there have actually graduated from college? With a major in what? How ya doing financially?

I'd say the degree is more important. I don't care how many people you know, you're going to have trouble getting a job with a master's in floral arrangements.

Do a google search for:

Privatized Prison Labor used by Corporations

I got back 47,000 hits. An intersesting one was:

http://www.markswatson.com/Page1.htm

Here's an excerpt from that page:

Prisoners have become a valuable commodity and an increasing demand for them and their hard work is a key issue in the debate. The increasingly unconstitutional nature of our legal system (Supreme Court rulings included), make it far easier, using the law to obtain workers which are paid very low wages. The issue is an important one, as many of the nations largest corporations are now hopping onto the the prison labor bandwagon. Boeing for example uses prison labor in the making of its aircraft. Boeing, having made significant cuts in its work force in just about every area but has actually increased its work force in two areas 1)China and 2)Washington State Reformatory (WSR) in Monroe, Washington. The losers, it seems, are not only the poor, who are unable to afford competent legal representation to keep them out of the prison system, but the American workers who do not know the true nature of the beast. The nature of the system has two groups who are being victimized by the same system at odds with one another. White skilled workers who are losing their jobs to prison inmates in China and America, and minorities, who are being incarcerated for victimless crimes (of whom many guilt is questionable) are used as low paid labor in corporate factories for greater profit. This is all being done in a legal system that is calling, perhaps not coincidentally, for longer and longer sentences for most crimes.


Well obviously, if the supreme court approves it, it must be constitutional.

As to the rest of it, we should kill to birds with one stone. Look how cheaply the chinese managed to house their prisoners. I say if you get a long sentence, then we should ship you off over there. A sort of out-sourcing of prison services to the chinese if you will. In return the chinese can pay us a percentage of the profits from putting these workshy jackanapes to productive tasks.

I'd say the degree is more important. I don't care how many people you know, you're going to have trouble getting a job with a master's in floral arrangements.


true, but if you have your floral arrangement professors attention (in a good way) your head and shoulders over the other students going for that floral arrangement job. But generally you want to get a degree in Business, Medicine, Law, etc. Liberal Arts of any field is a dead end w/o at least at a Masters degree.

I'd say the degree is more important. I don't care how many people you know, you're going to have trouble getting a job with a master's in floral arrangements.

Too right. In fact, just skip the bloody degree and get to work. That's another tired old excuse, college grads that are "too good" for honest work. What's wrong with them, don't they have two arms and a strong back.

Honestly, you can't get a plumber for love nor money these days, yet the dole lines are clogged with University graduates with their hands out. (And this after loafing in the education system for all those years).

Well obviously, if the supreme court approves it, it must be constitutional.

As to the rest of it, we should kill to birds with one stone. Look how cheaply the chinese managed to house their prisoners. I say if you get a long sentence, then we should ship you off over there. A sort of out-sourcing of prison services to the chinese if you will. In return the chinese can pay us a percentage of the profits from putting these workshy jackanapes to productive tasks.


The hell with China. Let's start up Devils Island again. We could make a reality show out of it except you don't get fired - you get firing squaded.

Liberal pinko rhetoric. Note the sentence I've put in bold. Why can't the poor afford representation? Because they're too lazy to earn the money for it. Even if, by some stroke of luck, they bought a winning lottery ticket, and had the money, they'd be too lazy to get representation anyway. And people who don't understand the system, don't understand it because they're too lazy and stupid to read about it.

Longer and longer sentences? Too bloody right.
Name calling someone's rationale isnt going to change the fact that the comments you are attempting to ridicule raise legitimate concerns. Nothing you have suggested mitigates concerns that productive non criminal elements of society might be disadvantaged unfairly by such programs. It may be that the concerns are ultimately unfounded because they are unsound or because they can mitigated through contingency measures, however nothing you have added reassures me that this is the case.

Regarding 'the poor' being 'too lazy' to get legal representation if financial barriers did not apply, that is theory doesnt appear sound in light of the facts.

Too right. In fact, just skip the bloody degree and get to work. That's another tired old excuse, college grads that are "too good" for honest work. What's wrong with them, don't they have two arms and a strong back.

Honestly, you can't get a plumber for love nor money these days, yet the dole lines are clogged with University graduates with their hands out. (And this after loafing in the education system for all those years).
That is what happens when society makes it seem that the only way to be successful is to go to college. All they tell you in school is to do what you want and be happy. College is not meant for everyone.

I myself am in a liberal arts major (history). But I intend to get my masters and then a doctorate.

Whats the minimum you have to earn before you have to start paying taxes in US?
You see, this is what I don't like about this country. Everyone should pay the same amount - the tax system is upside down. We should be paying the highest rate of tax on the lowest band, and then the percentage should decrease further up the payscale.

That would be the fairest workable system - the rich would have to pay a little more, unfortunately, because of the lazy proletariat not pulling their weight, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.

Name calling someone's rationale isnt going to change the fact that the comments you are attempting to ridicule raise legitimate concerns. Nothing you have suggested mitigates concerns that productive non criminal elements of society might be disadvantaged unfairly by such programs. It may be that the concerns are ultimately unfounded because they are unsound or because they can mitigated through contingency measures, however nothing you have added reassures me that this is the case.

Regarding 'the poor' being 'too lazy' to get legal representation if financial barriers did not apply, that is theory doesnt appear sound in light of the facts.
I bet it was sarcasm...or ironic. Or he may very well stand for what he states. If so, then he would be the ultimate example of a capitalist stereotype.

true, but if you have your floral arrangement professors attention (in a good way) your head and shoulders over the other students going for that floral arrangement job. But generally you want to get a degree in Business, Medicine, Law, etc. Liberal Arts of any field is a dead end w/o at least at a Masters degree.

Or engineering...my old roomates were C students and had no problems landing jobs...and this is back in 2001.

Whats the minimum you have to earn before you have to start paying taxes in US?

You get an automatic deduction of about $4500. So...$4500 I'd say.

The first $7k (after that) is taxed at 10%.

Name calling someone's rationale isnt going to change the fact that the comments you are attempting to ridicule raise legitimate concerns. Nothing you have suggested mitigates concerns that productive non criminal elements of society might be disadvantaged unfairly by such programs. It may be that the concerns are ultimately unfounded because they are unsound or because they can mitigated through contingency measures, however nothing you have added reassures me that this is the case.

Regarding 'the poor' being 'too lazy' to get legal representation if financial barriers did not apply, that is theory doesnt appear sound in light of the facts.


They are disadvantaged because they were to lazy to go out and learn a useful skill. Because of that they are competing with unskilled labor pools. Cry me a river. You don't see brain surgeons (or plumbers) worrying about this. Or master carpenters.

If they had bothered to do something useful in the first place they wouldn't be suffering from the squeeze.

I for one welcome immigrant landscapers. And a damn fine job they do too.

Name calling someone's rationale isnt going to change the fact that the comments you are attempting to ridicule raise legitimate concerns. Nothing you have suggested mitigates concerns that productive non criminal elements of society might be disadvantaged unfairly by such programs. It may be that the concerns are ultimately unfounded because they are unsound or because they can mitigated through contingency measures, however nothing you have added reassures me that this is the case.

Regarding 'the poor' being 'too lazy' to get legal representation if financial barriers did not apply, that is theory doesnt appear sound in light of the facts.
If you go back to the beginning of the thread, I think you'll find that we've already established that the poor are poor because they're too lazy to get a proper education and find a real job.

If they don't want to find themselves shovelling shit for the rest of their tragically short natural lives, then they should join us in the real world, where people work.

The hell with China. Let's start up Devils Island again. We could make a reality show out of it except you don't get fired - you get firing squaded.

I am against capital punishment. At least while there is still asbestos to remove.

I am against capital punishment. At least while there is still asbestos to remove.
Well, that is capital punishment, really. Have them remove it, and then they have plenty of time to think about what they've done while they die a slow, painful death.

Or engineering...my old roomates were C students and had no problems landing jobs...and this is back in 2001.


Precisely - I'd still recommend a tech degree over law or medicine any day, Even after the bubble burst.

LB - if you don't mind my asking, how are you paying for all this schooling?

You see, this is what I don't like about this country. Everyone should pay the same amount - the tax system is upside down. We should be paying the highest rate of tax on the lowest band, and then the percentage should decrease further up the payscale.

That would be the fairest workable system - the rich would have to pay a little more, unfortunately, because of the lazy proletariat not pulling their weight, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.


Finally, someone with a common sense proposal about taxes. What people seem to fail to realize is that rich people use their money more productively than the low-income types - who, let's face it, spend it mostly on the purchase of cheap liquor and women of the night. Why penalize the rich who are going to create jobs for those who are willing to work, just to subsidize the squalid lifestyles of the poor.

Finally, someone with a common sense proposal about taxes. What people seem to fail to realize is that rich people use their money more productively than the low-income types - who, let's face it, spend it mostly on the purchase of cheap liquor and women of the night. Why penalize the rich who are going to create jobs for those who are willing to work, just to subsidize the squalid lifestyles of the poor.

NO. Changed my mind. Ain't gonna touch that. I'm just not sure if you're being serious in this thread or just chain yanking. Done now. Outta here.

They are disadvantaged because they were to lazy to go out and learn a useful skill. Because of that they are competing with unskilled labor pools. Cry me a river. You don't see brain surgeons (or plumbers) worrying about this. Or master carpenters.

If they had bothered to do something useful in the first place they wouldn't be suffering from the squeeze.

I for one welcome immigrant landscapers. And a damn fine job they do too.
What have immigrant landscapers got to do with criminals being roped in at a cost saving to replace people to do jobs that are semi skilled and usually come with a requirement that those who hold the job have no criminal convictions. Part of the pay for such jobs is renumeration for being demonstratably trustworthy, and the accepted means of doing this is to have a clean record, ie no criminal convictions. Why should people who expect to be paid full wages in return for the minimum requirment of having a clean record, loose their jobs to much cheaper forced labour in the form of incarcerated convicted criminals, when such criminals dont even meet the usual mimimum requirements for those jobs?

Precisely - I'd still recommend a tech degree over law or medicine any day, Even after the bubble burst.

LB - if you don't mind my asking, how are you paying for all this schooling?
With student loans and some grants. The government likes to think that my parents can afford to pay for both me and my sister. I plan on doing a few years of service to pay off my loans after I get my degree. I think after three years all my loans would be paid off and the Army will then pay for any further education I desire. As a bonus, as a college grad, I will not be on the frontline with a rifle and more likely doing something technical. There is also legislation in my state where my loans would be paid off I choose to teach.

Totally inaccurate. To those of you who support this concept, how do you explain away the success of so many immigrants?

What do most immigrants share? They are hard-working and want to make a better life for themselves, otherwise they probably wouldn't have emigrated from the country of their origin.

Immigrants start from a MUCH worse point than people born into supposed poverty here. What passes for poverty here is often well-off in other nations, yet immigrants seem to do so much better than these people who blame their life on where and to whom they were born to.

I've always stated it, and I shall stand by it until proven wrong.

People who are poor in this society are because...
a) Incompetant
b) Lazy
c) Made poor choices
d) Some combination of the above

And a FEW small small number who are truly just the victims of bad luck.

So... anyways, aside from me running off on a tangent, what do you have to say when we compare immigrants and those born into "poverty" here?
WASPS keep them down :D

What have immigrant landscapers got to do with criminals being roped in at a cost saving to replace people to do jobs that are semi skilled and usually come with a requirement that those who hold the job have no criminal convictions. Part of the pay for such jobs is renumeration for being demonstratably trustworthy, and the accepted means of doing this is to have a clean record, ie no criminal convictions. Why should people who expect to be paid full wages in return for the minimum requirment of having a clean record, loose their jobs to much cheaper forced labour in the form of incarcerated convicted criminals, when such criminals dont even meet the usual mimimum requirements for those jobs?
Everybody knows that immigrants work hard - they come to this country because they want to be here - so they want to stay here. They're also not greedy enough to demand a ridiculous minimum wage from the people who are kind enough to give them a break. Most poor Americans are poor because they don't believe in the American Dream, and they don't match up to our work ethic, and just think everything should be handed to them on a plate. They were just lucky to have been born in the greatest nation on the planet.

What have immigrant landscapers got to do with criminals being roped in at a cost saving to replace people to do jobs that are semi skilled and usually come with a requirement that those who hold the job have no criminal convictions. Part of the pay for such jobs is renumeration for being demonstratably trustworthy, and the accepted means of doing this is to have a clean record, ie no criminal convictions. Why should people who expect to be paid full wages in return for the minimum requirment of having a clean record, loose their jobs to much cheaper forced labour in the form of incarcerated convicted criminals, when such criminals dont even meet the usual mimimum requirements for those jobs?


Well clearly, if criminals can do the work, this is not part of the job. Unskilled labor is unskilled labor. The fact that people were paying for a needless qualification before (trustworthyness) doesn't alter the fact that at the end of the day they are no more skilled than criminals.

Bottom line, if you want to avoid this problem, learn a skill.

Everybody knows that immigrants work hard - they come to this country because they want to be here - so they want to stay here. They're also not greedy enough to demand a ridiculous minimum wage from the people who are kind enough to give them a break. Most poor Americans are poor because they don't believe in the American Dream, and they don't match up to our work ethic, and just think everything should be handed to them on a plate. They were just lucky to have been born in the greatest nation on the planet.
I agree. I find myself respecting immigrant workers a lot more than the American poor. The immigrants except lower paying jobs and jobs that no one else wants. Why? Because they want the chance to have a better life. They take what is available and know that someday they can get a better job. The American poor, however, refuse to take some of the jobs that are open in the service industry.
NOTE: I am not talking about those that are unable to work due to injury or mental illness.

If you go back to the beginning of the thread, I think you'll find that we've already established that the poor are poor because they're too lazy to get a proper education and find a real job.

If they don't want to find themselves shovelling shit for the rest of their tragically short natural lives, then they should join us in the real world, where people work.
Regardless of any earlier comments in the thread, any conclusions that dont account for the lazy poors', high motivation with regards to extreme consumption of public resources intended for more deserving cases, is not accounting for an important premise and so is likely to be unsound. Lets face it, the lazy poor will walk 10 miles over cut glass if there's a corrupt shopkeeper on the other end of the walk, who'll trade a pack of cigarettes for a week's worth of food stamps. :p :D

Well clearly, if criminals can do the work, this is not part of the job. Unskilled labor is unskilled labor. The fact that people were paying for a needless qualification before (trustworthyness) doesn't alter the fact that at the end of the day they are no more skilled than criminals.

Bottom line, if you want to avoid this problem, learn a skill.
Or move to Europe, where they routinely prop up society's wasters at hard working people's expense. Don't expect a warm reception, though, because they seem to hate our freedom.

I agree. I find myself respecting immigrant workers a lot more than the American poor. The immigrants except lower paying jobs and jobs that no one else wants. Why? Because they want the chance to have a better life. They take what is available and know that someday they can get a better job. The American poor, however, refuse to take some of the jobs that are open in the service industry.
NOTE: I am not talking about those that are unable to work due to injury or mental illness.
Yes, but those unable to work should perhaps think about what they might have done in the past to deserve their incapacity.

Or move to Europe, where they routinely prop up society's wasters at hard working people's expense. Don't expect a warm reception, though, because they seem to hate our freedom.

Europeans have always been lazy racists. Even two world wars couldn't change that.

Unfortunately it seems that their rot has spread to japan these days.

Regardless of any earlier comments in the thread, any conclusions that dont account for the lazy poors', high motivation with regards to extreme consumption of public resources intended for more deserving cases, is not accounting for an important premise and so is likely to be unsound. Lets face it, the lazy poor will walk 10 miles over cut glass if there's a corrupt shopkeeper on the other side end of the walk, who'll trade a pack of cigarettes for a week's worth of food stamps. :p :D


You might think so, but I have noticed that the corrupt shopkeeper tend to have to move into their neighborhoods before said transaction can occur.

In fact I can't recall the lazy poor walking any great distance. Most of them ride around on public transport or take cabs. (Paid for, of course, by the long suffering tax payer).

doesnt it depend on the person? I mean, just like the english language, there will always be those different to the minority. (eg. lets say most poor people are lazy, made poor choices etc. then again, there WILL be those who were 'born' into an environment where their education was sub-standard and hence the poor-cycle continues, yet OF COURSE there are those who can successfully pull themselves out of this rut making this whole discussion POINTLESS because there are too many contradictions and special cases) So whats the point of all these generalisations for they will be, at least in part, wrong?

Or move to Europe, where they routinely prop up society's wasters at hard working people's expense. Don't expect a warm reception, though, because they seem to hate our freedom.

Don't kid yourself. We live in a military welfare state.

$400 billion a year well spent.

doesnt it depend on the person? I mean, just like the english language, there will always be those different to the minority. (eg. lets say most poor people are lazy, made poor choices etc. then again, there WILL be those who were 'born' into an environment where their education was sub-standard and hence the poor-cycle continues, yet OF COURSE there are those who can successfully pull themselves out of this rut making this whole discussion POINTLESS because there are too many contradictions and special cases) So whats the point of all these generalisations for they will be, at least in part, wrong?


The poor cycle was invented by workshy sociologists to justify their continued existence. Those people are nothing more than the 21 century equivalent of phrenologists.

Europeans have always been lazy racists. Even two world wars couldn't change that.

Unfortunately it seems that their rot has spread to japan these days.
Can you believe they get offended at the word "Freedom"? I'd far rather that than fill my stomach with "French".

Europeans have always been lazy racists. Even two world wars couldn't change that.

Unfortunately it seems that their rot has spread to japan these days.

Again, a generalisation which is (jn part) WRONG and VERY offensive. I live in Australia (u know, that little island where kangaroos hop through our backyard and we ALL wear little corked hats?) which is a VERY multicultural society. Not ONLY am I of Europeon orgin from my immigrant grandparents, but I am VERY accepting of other cultures and i am CERTAINLY not lazy. And my nanna and late granfather (both born in Slovenia) were not either. If you are GOING to make generalisation, try not to offend everyone in the process.

Don't kid yourself. We live in a military welfare state.

$400 billion a year well spent.
The only thing military about welfare should be firing squads for people too lazy to contribute to society.

The only thing military about welfare should be firing squads for people too lazy to contribute to society.

The point I was trying to make is that we call the Europeans 'socialists' while pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into the military machine. Seems to me that it would be better off going to social programs (or back into my pocket - even better).

Can't get a job? Enlist!

Again, a generalisation which is (jn part) WRONG and VERY offensive. I live in Australia (u know, that little island where kangaroos hop through our backyard and we ALL wear little corked hats?) which is a VERY multicultural society. Not ONLY am I of Europeon orgin from my immigrant grandparents, but I am VERY accepting of other cultures and i am CERTAINLY not lazy. And my nanna and late granfather (both born in Slovenia) were not either. If you are GOING to make generalisation, try not to offend everyone in the process.


Well clearly your family did the right thing by moving out.

I don't claim that every european is a lazy racist, just that is how their workshy system is set up. It is positively medieval over there.

And I know for a fact that not all austrailians wear corked hats, because I once saw a small portion of Crocadile Dundee on TV.

Well clearly, if criminals can do the work, this is not part of the job. Unskilled labor is unskilled labor. The fact that people were paying for a needless qualification before (trustworthyness) doesn't alter the fact that at the end of the day they are no more skilled than criminals.

Bottom line, if you want to avoid this problem, learn a skill.
Fine and well if when I call a call centre or at any time provide any information, I am informed that the information will be routinely handed to convicted currently incarcerated prisoners. However since companies are not routinely telling us who is personally handling our information and yet still desire our trust in order for the wheels of industry to continue to churn over well greased by the trust requiring system of modern financial transactions, it stands to reason that they in good faith not employ incarcerated criminals to handle my personal and/or credit information. Call me paranoid or a cynic, but I'd rather be correct when I assume the personal taking my credit card details for the power company, isnt a convicted felon currently serving a sentence for credit card fraud...

Can't get a job? Enlist!
A good suggestion. But if you're too lazy to get a job in the first place, then you probably wouldn't make a very good soldier.

A good suggestion. But if you're too lazy to get a job in the first place, then you probably wouldn't make a very good soldier.


I dunno...I think the right drill sargeant could give them some motivation. Nothing like people shooting at you to get you moving.

The point I was trying to make is that we call the Europeans 'socialists' while pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into the military machine. Seems to me that it would be better off going to social programs (or back into my pocket - even better).

Can't get a job? Enlist!


Unfortunately most of the lazy poor in this country do not qualify for the armed forces. Hence their reliance on the current welfare state.

Unfortunately most of the lazy poor in this country do not qualify for the armed forces. Hence their reliance on the current welfare state.

Either way, the state is taking my money and wasting it.

Fine and well if when I call a call centre or at any time provide any information, I am informed that the information will be routinely handed to convicted currently incarcerated prisoners. However since companies are not routinely telling us who is personally handling our information and yet still desire our trust in order for the wheels of industry to continue to churn over well greased by the trust requiring system of modern financial transactions, it stands to reason that they in good faith not employ incarcerated criminals to handle my personal and/or credit information. Call me paranoid or a cynic, but I'd rather be correct when I assume the personal taking my credit card details for the power company, isnt a convicted felon currently serving a sentence for credit card fraud...

Well, if you have enough money you will get a private banker so you don't have to speak to "call centers" - whatever they are.

Either way, the state is taking my money and wasting it.

I think it is fairly clear that I agree with you on that score.

And why are they in Australia. Simple. They racism and laziness of the europeans. But I say well done to your family for taking the initiative and getting out of that hell-hole.

I'm pretty sure some of it had to do with (the pre-mediated and HIGHLY conspiritorial) World War II and not ENTIRELY to racism and laziness (because we all know that the war wasnt started due to racism... it was just to justify government authority or something). While I myself have never stepped foot in Europe (though I did once go to New Zealand to visit my kiwi cousins on a SHEEP FARM. What a holiday.) I wouldnt call it a hell-hole, although im sure there are some places in Europe where hell-hole is the only fitting term. And thank you for the congatulations. We now make a good living for ourselves. (those of my family who arent dead)

I think it is fairly clear that I agree with you on that score.

Ah, an agreement on NS.

Now I can go to sleep.

And I know for a fact that not all austrailians wear corked hats, because I once saw a small portion of Crocadile Dundee on TV.

Just to clarify (and this, I realise, ahs nothing to do with poor people) that movie, Crocodile Dundee is grossly exaggerated. Though I applaud you for noticing the lack of corked hats and (i PRAY) kangaroos in our backyards.

Just to clarify (and this, I realise, ahs nothing to do with poor people) that movie, Crocodile Dundee is grossly exaggerated. Though I applaud you for noticing the lack of corked hats and (i PRAY) kangaroos in our backyards.

I have also had the misfortune of viewing a small portion of one of your "soap" operas. :mad:

Home and Away, or somesuch. (Damn business trips).

Well, if you have enough money you will get a private banker so you don't have to speak to "call centers" - whatever they are.
So far as I can see this wont solve the inherent problems that I see arising from a system of unqualified and unrestricted use of incarcerated criminals as a cheap source of production, nor have you raised any tangable benefits that convince me that the inherent problems I perceive are countered or outweighed by equal or greater benefits.

I have also had the misfortune of viewing a small portion of one of your "soap" operas. :mad:

Home and Away, or somesuch. (Damn business trips).
*looks scandalised* Home & Away isnt a soap, its a way of life!!!!
I cannot STAND home & away, but I have to say it is a lot less classic-soap (no one here actually CALLS it a soap) than the millions of american soaps churned out of all those TV networks. Besides, everyone here is talking about the OC (which I dont watch) but i dont think that's classic soap opera.

So far as I can see this wont solve the inherent problems that I see arising from a system of unqualified and unrestricted use of incarcerated criminals as a cheap source of production, nor have you raised any tangable benefits that convince me that the inherent problems I perceive are countered or outweighed by equal or greater benefits.

Well, to begin with, your credit card information is useless to a criminal, and even if it wasn't you don't bear the loss. The card issuer does.

The only way you can get yourself in trouble is if you give certain extra information over the phone, which you shouldn't do in the first place.

And as I pointed out before, they are not unqualified. They are equally qualified. (Plus most call centers are in india these days because they are cheaper than criminals. So no problem anyway.)

Like I said, asbestos removal.

*looks scandalised* Home & Away isnt a soap, its a way of life!!!!
I cannot STAND home & away, but I have to say it is a lot less classic-soap (no one here actually CALLS it a soap) than the millions of american soaps churned out of all those TV networks. Besides, everyone here is talking about the OC (which I dont watch) but i dont think that's classic soap opera.

Yes, I also don't watch the american offerings either. (In sharp contrast to the dull witted poor).

Well, to begin with, your credit card information is useless to a criminal, and even if it wasn't you don't bear the loss. The card issuer does.

The only way you can get yourself in trouble is if you give certain extra information over the phone, which you shouldn't do in the first place.

And as I pointed out before, they are not unqualified. They are equally qualified. (Plus most call centers are in india these days because they are cheaper than criminals. So no problem anyway.)

Like I said, asbestos removal.
Well that is certainly more useful information than 'get a private banker'. ;)

Totally inaccurate. To those of you who support this concept, how do you explain away the success of so many immigrants?

What do most immigrants share? They are hard-working and want to make a better life for themselves, otherwise they probably wouldn't have emigrated from the country of their origin.

Immigrants start from a MUCH worse point than people born into supposed poverty here. What passes for poverty here is often well-off in other nations, yet immigrants seem to do so much better than these people who blame their life on where and to whom they were born to.

I've always stated it, and I shall stand by it until proven wrong.

People who are poor in this society are because...
a) Incompetant
b) Lazy
c) Made poor choices
d) Some combination of the above

And a FEW small small number who are truly just the victims of bad luck.

So... anyways, aside from me running off on a tangent, what do you have to say when we compare immigrants and those born into "poverty" here?

the one point i would make is that a person who is incompetant, lazy, and makes poor choices can be amazingly wealthy if they just so happen to be born into a rich family. so if one looks at two lazy, incompetant people who make poor choices, one can find that the first person is wealthy but the second is poor, and the only reason for the difference is an accident of birth. in that sense, poor people ARE poor because they were born poor. :)

the one point i would make is that a person who is incompetant, lazy, and makes poor choices can be amazingly wealthy if they just so happen to be born into a rich family. so if one looks at two lazy, incompetant people who make poor choices, one can find that the first person is wealthy but the second is poor, and the only reason for the difference is an accident of birth. in that sense, poor people ARE poor because they were born poor. :)
If someone has got money, then they can't be lazy - they obviously expend energy maintaining their wealth. You have to work hard to get to the top, and work hard to stay there.

If someone has got money, then they can't be lazy - they obviously expend energy maintaining their wealth. You have to work hard to get to the top, and work hard to stay there.
not true at all. if you have $50 million you can stick it in a standard savings account and live comfortably off the interest for the rest of your life. it is quite easy to be lazy when one is rich. not to mention that if you are rich enough you can simply hire other people to manage everything for you, and spend your time doing whatever you please.

one can be lazy at virtually any income level, provided that one is content with one's status quo. hell, i'm pretty durn lazy, all things considered, and i technically live at the poverty line :P.

not true at all. if you have $50 million you can stick it in a standard savings account and live comfortably off the interest for the rest of your life. it is quite easy to be lazy when one is rich. not to mention that if you are rich enough you can simply hire other people to manage everything for you, and spend your time doing whatever you please.

one can be lazy at virtually any income level, provided that one is content with one's status quo. hell, i'm pretty durn lazy, all things considered, and i technically live at the poverty line :P.
Aye, 'tis true. My this thread was fun while it lasted.

$400 A WEEK!!! Damn, I'd love to be making $400 a week. Try about $275 after taxes.
well, if i recall (i worked through an agency at a car part factory for a couple weeks in the summer) it was closer to $350, with deductions (tax and employment insurance) this is also in canadian dollars..

For anyone that still follows this thread, the last few pages have been what I like to call a 'Circle Jerk for Freedom!'(tm) AKA a schizo super-rightwinger with multiple accounts(or at least the appearance as such). This is exactly like what happens between freepers, and I wouldn't be surprised if these people were freepers, especially with the recent call to arms they had....

I would like to kindly ask Lacadaemon to give his job(which affords business trips, indicating some form of cushiness) to prisoners(there are some smart executives in prison that could do it) so that he may take the job of removing asbestos that he so often stresses. It would make for good character building. It just might make him see things from the poor's point of view, and might make him stop trying to shove his skewed minority viewpoint(upper-middle with a grudge) into politics.

Also on the agenda would be Torching Witches enrollment in the military, followed by his being crippled by an IED, sure to make the rest of his life bright and fun. Just thank the heavens he didn't cut the military's budget so he doesn't have to live on Satan's welfare system! And at least he was injured defending the greatest county on earth's happy-fun prison camps.

Conservatives used to be about defending Americans, some still are. You are about defending the rich, plain and simple. Supporting immigrants who come into this country and steal jobs from Americans is just greed talking. A poor American is still an American, no matter how much you attempt to vilify them by calling them lazy. Just because an immigrant is more hard-working is no reason to let them come here and take jobs from people born here. Doing so only compounds the problem by creating more poor/unemployed that need welfare to survive. And I'd love to see you personally line the poor up and shoot them as you seem to want to do; hell, the jobs created burying or burning all the bodies might employ the people you don't kill! Doubleplus good!

The rich need to wake up and stop complaining about their 'problems' and realize they should be more worried about keeping the poor from rebelling, because if you keep on trying to put them down, they'll try to get up with a vengeance.

Before you can make any sort of judgment regarding the poor, you must understand the fundamental flaw of capitalism:

Someone will be on the bottom.

Whatever the reason for their being there, there will be a lower class in capitalism. A lower class is needed to sustain the jobs that are required to support the upper classes (much like a pyramid). One could argue why certain people are in the lower class or poor, but I am disgusted by people comforting themselves by assuming, "oh they're poor, they must be lazy. Screw welfare, screw Medicaid, I earned my keep by slaving over my uh…desk job.” The truth is that the power lies in the labor that runs at the base of the country and they deserve our contribution and support.

Before you can make any sort of judgment regarding the poor, you must understand the fundamental flaw of capitalism:

Someone will be on the bottom.

Whatever the reason for their being there, there will be a lower class in capitalism. A lower class is needed to sustain the jobs that are required to support the upper classes (much like a pyramid). One could argue why certain people are in the lower class or poor, but I am disgusted by people comforting themselves by assuming, "oh they're poor, they must be lazy. Screw welfare, screw Medicaid, I earned my keep by slaving over my uh…desk job.” The truth is that the power lies in the labor that runs at the base of the country and they deserve our contribution and support.

Yes someone will be on the bottom, those least able to contribute to society will be on the bottom. I don't see the problem with that.

Of course the bottom of any ladder is important, but the reason they don't deserve the same respect and recognition as those higher up is... for everyone 1 person higher up, there are thousands, or 10s of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of those bottom workers, and those workers at the bottom, they could be easily replaced at any time by other people and success would not be affected, but changing even 1 person high up could make or break the company (or organization).

I'm sorry, you might not like it, but the cold hard facts are that a single common worker is NOT as important as a single senior executive.

Most people at the bottom are there because they simply aren't as good, no one is saying (well maybe some people are, I'M not) that laziness is the only factor, some people are simply incompetant. I don't see why others should have to lose out to help someone whose simply incompetant.

Wow this thread has gone so off topic.... it was supposed to be about IMMIGRANTS vs. those born into poverty here...

Totally inaccurate. To those of you who support this concept, how do you explain away the success of so many immigrants?

What do most immigrants share? They are hard-working and want to make a better life for themselves, otherwise they probably wouldn't have emigrated from the country of their origin.

Immigrants start from a MUCH worse point than people born into supposed poverty here. What passes for poverty here is often well-off in other nations, yet immigrants seem to do so much better than these people who blame their life on where and to whom they were born to.

I've always stated it, and I shall stand by it until proven wrong.

People who are poor in this society are because...
a) Incompetant
b) Lazy
c) Made poor choices
d) Some combination of the above

And a FEW small small number who are truly just the victims of bad luck.

So... anyways, aside from me running off on a tangent, what do you have to say when we compare immigrants and those born into "poverty" here?



a direct consequence of this is that the USA are a nation made only of the better people of the world. Which is even more strange is that americans aren't an ethny or a race, which would have been the only explanation. How do you explain that no country apart maybe norway and luxembourg got an overall population as rich as the US? Cause they're all lazy and incompetant. This, or the author of this thread is completely inaccurate :sniper:

One thing this thread has made me realize is...

Retards would make good custodians! They should receive specialized training in that sort of thing to prepare them for a productive economic life. Seriously, what's this crap trying to teach people with 60 IQs the intricacies of English grammar? Just make sure they know not to clean stalls with people in them.

:)

a direct consequence of this is that the USA are a nation made only of the better people of the world. Which is even more strange is that americans aren't an ethny or a race, which would have been the only explanation. How do you explain that no country apart maybe norway and luxembourg got an overall population as rich as the US? Cause they're all lazy and incompetant. This, or the author of this thread is completely inaccurate :sniper:

Erm, you're totally misunderstanding the point of this thread.

The success of America is due to it's hard-working and competant citizens...

However, there are those who are in poverty, those who suck government money, those who complain that we need social welfare, that people are only poor because they are victims of the system.

This thread is here to point to immigrants and their relative success (by comparison to those in poverty here), especially with consideration to the fact those in poverty have had many many advantages over these immigrants who still do better.

First, define "wealthy."

Second, understand that in a pure capitalistic society, for someone to become rich, several others must be poor.
That's not true at all. Wealth is not zero-sum. Unlike matter and energy, wealth can be both created and destroyed.


Consider a case where you and another person are air-dropped into the Alaskan wilderness 50 miles from each other and 500 miles from anyone else, each with an identical set of basic survival tools. Your first order of buisness would be to create some sort of shelter and find some food. For the purpose of this example, let's say you know how to do that.

At the end of the first month, you've managed to build a nice little shack, have about 200 pounds of seasoned meat hanging from a tree, and have carved wooden pots for storing various wild fruits and vegetables. For now you only have some dried berries, but soon it will be cold enough to keep them frozen in the gound. At the moment, you're working a rock and clay fireplace for your shack with a craving for a Coke.

At six months the temperature is diving to -45ºF overnight, but you're doing fine because your fireplace works great and you've got a literal ton of wood outside. Suddenly, you wake up when someone knocks on your door. You suspect it to be the other guy who was air-dropped, but you have no idea what to expect. You know he's a good guy, but you grab your rifle just in case he's gone mad. He turns out to be sane and in almost fair health, but he's not doing as well as you. He never managed to build the sort of shelter you did and he's run out of food and ammunition. His ears and nose are permantantly damaged from frostbite and he's 30 pounds underweight. Without your help, he won't last another month. At this point you are clearly more wealthy than him, but it is not at all a result of him (or anyone else) being poorer than you.

For anyone that still follows this thread, the last few pages have been what I like to call a 'Circle Jerk for Freedom!'(tm) AKA a schizo super-rightwinger with multiple accounts(or at least the appearance as such). This is exactly like what happens between freepers, and I wouldn't be surprised if these people were freepers, especially with the recent call to arms they had....

I would like to kindly ask Lacadaemon to give his job(which affords business trips, indicating some form of cushiness) to prisoners(there are some smart executives in prison that could do it) so that he may take the job of removing asbestos that he so often stresses. It would make for good character building. It just might make him see things from the poor's point of view, and might make him stop trying to shove his skewed minority viewpoint(upper-middle with a grudge) into politics.

Also on the agenda would be Torching Witches enrollment in the military, followed by his being crippled by an IED, sure to make the rest of his life bright and fun. Just thank the heavens he didn't cut the military's budget so he doesn't have to live on Satan's welfare system! And at least he was injured defending the greatest county on earth's happy-fun prison camps.

Conservatives used to be about defending Americans, some still are. You are about defending the rich, plain and simple. Supporting immigrants who come into this country and steal jobs from Americans is just greed talking. A poor American is still an American, no matter how much you attempt to vilify them by calling them lazy. Just because an immigrant is more hard-working is no reason to let them come here and take jobs from people born here. Doing so only compounds the problem by creating more poor/unemployed that need welfare to survive. And I'd love to see you personally line the poor up and shoot them as you seem to want to do; hell, the jobs created burying or burning all the bodies might employ the people you don't kill! Doubleplus good!

The rich need to wake up and stop complaining about their 'problems' and realize they should be more worried about keeping the poor from rebelling, because if you keep on trying to put them down, they'll try to get up with a vengeance.
Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this post was also a joke. Lacadaemon's and my posts were so ridiculous I find it difficult to believe that anyone would think we were being serious.

Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this post was also a joke. Lacadaemon's and my posts were so ridiculous I find it difficult to believe that anyone would think we were being serious.
No way. You seemed so serious. Who would have ever thought you guys were joking?



Good job on pretending to be American, btw.

No way. You seemed so serious. Who would have ever thought you guys were joking?



Good job on pretending to be American, btw.
Thank you. I spent months perfecting my drawl.

Thank you. I spent months perfecting my drawl.
It was good but next time try something a little bit less Texan. It will probably throw more people off.

People who are born poor have a much more difficult road ahead when they try to suceed, such as deciding wether to feed your family or goto college.

I'd like to see you live a day in the shoe of a poor South American or African, you'd be singing a different tune then.

People who are born poor have a much more difficult road ahead when they try to suceed, such as deciding wether to feed your family or goto college.

I'd like to see you live a day in the shoe of a poor South American or African, you'd be singing a different tune then.


Depends on how big the shoe is. If it's a twelve bedroom shoe I don't think I'd have any problems.

not true at all. if you have $50 million you can stick it in a standard savings account and live comfortably off the interest for the rest of your life. it is quite easy to be lazy when one is rich. not to mention that if you are rich enough you can simply hire other people to manage everything for you, and spend your time doing whatever you please. It is not at all that simple.
1. The interest rate on a standard savings account falls far below the rate of inflation. It's still possible to "live off the interest", but you could just as comfortably live off the $50 million as cash.
2. There is considerable risk to having large amounts of cash in an American bank. The banks do not possess enough assets to cover their debt. FDIC can only cover about 10% of the difference, and it doesn't cover anything over $100k per account, if I remember correctly.
3. Hiring people is anything but a simple matter. Poor hiring decisions can potentially get you or your family killed. You must know what you things you should pay people do and how to make sure they actually do them. You need to be able to tell when someone's giving you bad advice or outright lies. If you don't know what you're doing, you will lose your wealth.

Consider the real-life example of Micheal Jackson. That poor bastard's has only seen the world thru the eyes of the vultures that surround him. That's why he's delusional. If he knew anything about money he'd still be rich.

one can be lazy at virtually any income level, provided that one is content with one's status quo. hell, i'm pretty durn lazy, all things considered, and i technically live at the poverty line :P.
Laziness, defined as "not pulling your own weight", is only compatible with survival when you're lucky enough to have someone else take care of you.

Your entire argument is based on myth.

Immigrants are disproportionately poor, uneducated, and unskilled.

See this page (http://cis.org/articles/poverty_study/list.html) from the Center for Immigration Studies (or practically any other page on their website).

Sure, some of them make it--but not many, and no more than the native poor.

It just happens to be ideologically convenient to hold up the myth of the entrepreneurial immigrant... to further blame the native poor.

The point I was trying to make is that we call the Europeans 'socialists' while pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into the military machine. Seems to me that it would be better off going to social programs (or back into my pocket - even better).

Can't get a job? Enlist!The American military is the most vast comprehensive socialist institution in the world. In the military pays for your health care and your families. As per typical with socialized medicine, you get what you pay for. Triage isn't just for the battlefield anymore. If you're single with no dependents you share a room with someone like yourself. If you're married, you get housing. If you're married with 9 kids, you get a bigger house. To each according to his need? The relationship between work and pay is pretty indirect. You pretty much get paid the same whether you're slacking off at 30 hours a week or dodging bullets every day with little sleep. That might not be 'socialism' by the various definitions, but it's a far cry from free market labor. Promotions require luck (right place+right time), ass-kissing, and jumping thru hoops. Also, if you're in the military, you've less freedom than a soviet citizen did 30 years ago.

It is not at all that simple.
1. The interest rate on a standard savings account falls far below the rate of inflation. It's still possible to "live off the interest", but you could just as comfortably live off the $50 million as cash.

either way, it's damn easy to live off $50 million. you don't have to know how to invest or anything if you just want to live off of it...just don't TRY to invest if you don't know how :).


2. There is considerable risk to having large amounts of cash in an American bank. The banks do not possess enough assets to cover their debt. FDIC can only cover about 10% of the difference, and it doesn't cover anything over $100k per account, if I remember correctly.

fine, bury the cash in your backyard instead, if you don't trust the banks. regardless, i could live off of a million dollars for at least 15 years, so $50 mil would make my life a breeze.


3. Hiring people is anything but a simple matter. Poor hiring decisions can potentially get you or your family killed. You must know what you things you should pay people do and how to make sure they actually do them. You need to be able to tell when someone's giving you bad advice or outright lies. If you don't know what you're doing, you will lose your wealth.

*shrug* maybe you consider that hard, i don't. especially not when compared to real work, work that must support you instead of the minimal effort required to obtain and supervise help. but then, my jobs have tended to be rough enough that it gives me a bit of perspective on that sort of thing.


Consider the real-life example of Micheal Jackson. That poor bastard's has only seen the world thru the eyes of the vultures that surround him. That's why he's delusional. If he knew anything about money he'd still be rich.

sure, it is quite possible to fumble a fortune, and there are many examples of people who have done just that. however, i maintain that they made some pretty obvious bad choices, and it would be a relatively simple matter to avoid such errors. also, the added complication of being a super mega ultra star kind of is a confounding factor in your example...i was talking about somebody who simply wants to live a modest, comfortable life, not somebody who wants to be the King of Pop. those are quite different propositions.


Laziness, defined as "not pulling your own weight", is only compatible with survival when you're lucky enough to have someone else take care of you.
if you want to define laziness that particular way, then you are right. of course, that's not the actual definition of the word...the real definition would be one of the following:

1. Resistant to work or exertion; disposed to idleness.
2. Slow-moving; sluggish: a lazy river.
3. Conducive to idleness or indolence: a lazy summer day.
4. Depicted as reclining or lying on its side. Used of a brand on livestock.

i am quite resistent to work and exertion, i am disposed to idleness, i am pretty slow moving and sluggist, and i recline or lie on my side whenever a more erect posture isn't necessary. none of those things stop me from pulling my own weight, and none of them require that somebody else support me.

So... anyways, aside from me running off on a tangent, what do you have to say when we compare immigrants and those born into "poverty" here?

Eugenics.

either way, it's damn easy to live off $50 million. you don't have to know how to invest or anything if you just want to live off of it...just don't TRY to invest if you don't know how :).


fine, bury the cash in your backyard instead, if you don't trust the banks. regardless, i could live off of a million dollars for at least 15 years, so $50 mil would make my life a breeze.But then you have to make sure you don't spend too much. It really helps if you have a rough idea when you're going to die. And if you're burying US Federal Reserve Notes, there's no guarantee that $10 million will buy you a pair of Nikes in 50 years.


*shrug* maybe you consider that hard, i don't. especially not when compared to real work, work that must support you instead of the minimal effort required to obtain and supervise help. but then, my jobs have tended to be rough enough that it gives me a bit of perspective on that sort of thing.
Have you ever held a supervisory position? Just because someone's hands aren't bleeding doesn't mean they aren't working. In the case of a rich guy hiring help, it might not be exhaustive work, but it's very important work. The richer you are the more of a target you are.


sure, it is quite possible to fumble a fortune, and there are many examples of people who have done just that. however, i maintain that they made some pretty obvious bad choices, and it would be a relatively simple matter to avoid such errors. also, the added complication of being a super mega ultra star kind of is a confounding factor in your example...i was talking about somebody who simply wants to live a modest, comfortable life, not somebody who wants to be the King of Pop. those are quite different propositions.
Well, I guess I'm kind of looking at it differently. Let's say a kid is born with $50 million dollars to live a comfortable life. So what? Is it really so wrong? Is his life actually better than that of a kid born in a trailer park?
The rich kid is probably not going to learn many of the early life lessons that the trailer-park kid will. The rich kid will probably require the services of a cook or restaraunt staff in order to eat a decent meal. The trailer-park kid will be able to cook for himself, and do his own laundry. Both of their lives will be filled with some sort of conflict. I think the major factor in how their lives compare is not the wealth they're born with, but how they are raised.

Well, I guess I'm kind of looking at it differently. Let's say a kid is born with $50 million dollars to live a comfortable life. So what? Is it really so wrong? Is his life actually better than that of a kid born in a trailer park?
The rich kid is probably not going to learn many of the early life lessons that the trailer-park kid will. The rich kid will probably require the services of a cook or restaraunt staff in order to eat a decent meal. The trailer-park kid will be able to cook for himself, and do his own laundry. Both of their lives will be filled with some sort of conflict. I think the major factor in how their lives compare is not the wealth they're born with, but how they are raised.
Without her wealth Paris Hilton would just be another annoying ass not given the time of day. With her wealth she is celebrated and her rotteness is rewarded.

It's not a garauntee, the Hyatt heiress donates to Shakespeare festivals. I prefer her. Boycott Hilton hotels, stay at the Hyatt....what if we rewarded people for being good people and not just being rich?

I'll add that I was raised 'rich' (upper middle class, really) and have been homeless. Yes, both have their problems, but the formers problems look pretty puus compared to the latters.