NationStates Jolt Archive

People like to complain how the world Americans live in makes the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer. All I have to say is, "Well duh...and your point is?" Because the poor, who make bad decisions and squander the boundless opportunities offered to them in this nation, are making the same stupid decisions that made them poor in the first place. And the rich, are still making the good decisions that made them succeed.

Speaking of that, if you have 1000 dollars in the pocket right now and you are thrown out into the street of, say New York City, and assuming you don't have rich friends/relative who can help you, what "right" decisions can you make to make you succeed? And I am not trying to be sarcastic I just want to know if there are any secret tricks that I am not aware of in this society that can make you succeed.

That aside, if people don't buy stupid things and make poor decision with their money, then economy will collapse, and the rich people will start getting poorer too.

Ummm.. yeah... a federal minimum wage is a good thing for all locations in the country...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hzoktWGf63RJcNzctvWwflexvXcw

ooops...

Looks like you'll have to pay people 10 dollars an hour to flip burgers in Montana.

You'll have to pay then 16 dollars an hour in Herndon, Va - or they won't even apply for the job.
Oh, how terrible. Record low unemployment and high paying jobs elsewhere is forcing the little ol' poor McDs into offering a decent wage to it's employees.

And this has what exactly to do with a minimum wage?

Seems to me it's a perfect example of the 'Invisible hand' at work. Supply and Demand. Supply and Demand.
Always fascinating to see how the rabid Right suddenly despise Market Forces when it works in favour of the worker and call for/demand govt intervention.
It's almost as if they're hypocrites, only approving of the Free Market when it suits the employer, not the employee.
naw...couldn't be.

yes it does point out the stupidity of libertarians
Dammit, I'm going to reply every time I see this, Andaras Prime. Stop calling ideologies stupid. NOW. This bullshit is getting on my nerves... I know quite a lot of stupid liberals and yet I do not call liberals stupid in general. This is what someone says about something that they cannot prove and yet just want to be hateful and idiotic.

I agree that the vast number of poor are that way for a reason. There can be a multitude of reasons - anything from being 18 and fresh into the world to being 40 with a worthless college degree and still possessing the mistaken belief that hard work=success.

Many people are poor because of age/immigration status - many people are poor because of their own poor choices, some are poor by personal preference, some are poor for medical reasons, a handful are poor because of bum luck and some are poor because they just want it to look that way on their tax return.

The good news is that in the US 'poor' is not a life sentence. Over 50% of people escape poverty and a little over 1 in 100 go on to become wealthy. You will find no other nation in the world with a record like that! Particularly one with as much ethnic diversity and with as much immigration (particularly of poor) as the US. People who clamor about poverty rates conveniently forget that the US takes on on a whole new burden each year of tens of millions of new immigrants - most of whom are poor.

Capitalism is an ingenious method of rewarding risk, hard work, efficiency, social interaction, and innovation, to name a few. No other system holds the same promise. In a fully developed market there is the rare occasion where someone tries taking a short cut to success which does not benefit anyone but them self (and often is harmful) - but that is the exception to the rule - which is why it makes such great headlines in a free society. You can't fool all of the people all of the time - and these cases prove it. You can fool some of the people all of the time - and communism and socialism prove that.

People for years have tried to figure out ways to reduce risks and responsibilities. That is innovative and good. However consequences can never be legislated away - at least not without prohibitive costs in terms of freedom as much as other costs. At the end of the day risks, responsibilities, and most of all - consequences are what socialists and communists seek most to eliminate. This is the reason that they will never be successful. They think that success is finite and that the potential for success should be limited for everyone.

I disagree. The unlimited potential for success, the unlimited choices we have, the consequences of the decisions we make; These are all what define the freedom we all enjoy. Communists and socialists believe that freedom is only bought with money. They think that all of life's problems are solved with money and they believe that the government should provide it without question. They are the most materialistic of everyone.

Money is not freedom nor does it buy it. Freedom is not about material possessions. Freedom is not about currency or wealth. Freedom is about doing what you wish with the resources you have without interference from anyone. You are free to grow it, waste it, give it away or anything else. The size or amount of your personal resources has absolutely nothing to do with your freedom to do whatever you choose with it.

And that is the part where communists and socialists show their materialistic greed. They try hard to find exception to that rule but each exception is always about money - About jealousy over money.

In capitalism you can choose to pursue wealth - in communism and socialism you only confiscate it from other people. They claim to be more 'caring' yet by sheltering people from consequences they doom them to a life of dependence. By confiscating property they punish success. They have no faith in humanity and our ability to decide for ourselves what is best for us. To limit consequences they limit choices - and freedom is NOT about limiting choices.

Capitalism is all about aligning personal needs with community needs. A person simply cannot become successful in a well structured capitalistic economy without benefiting society proportional to their wealth. No matter how hard anyone may try to dismiss this fact the reality of it stares us all in the face every day.

Once a person becomes successful communists and socialists desperately want it to end. They want to take it from that person. Take it from their family. Success is an aberration to them and must be stopped. It certainly should not be shared with those you love.

Capitalism is not just about succeeding for yourself - it is about being free to succeed for your children and their children and children who may not even be born this century. It is about giving the gift of the best education you can afford to the people you love most in the world. It is about helping them buy their first car, home and even business if you choose. The whole point - with capitalism you are free to do what you wish with the resources you have - including give them away to people you love. Communists and socialists are jealous of that. They want to take your success from you and give it to people you don't even know - who may not(and probably don't) deserve it. Somehow they consider that more ethical and caring. They feel that firmly puts their footing on a moral high ground.

Capitalists know what the communists and socialists don't - a turd is not a moral high ground.

Capitalism has created more success, produced more wealth, and raised more people out of poverty than any other system ever devised by man. I am proud to be a part of capitalism and proud of the wealth I have created from my role in benefiting my community. I only wish I could do even more.

I agree that the vast number of poor are that way for a reason.

No duh.

There can be a multitude of reasons - anything from being 18 and fresh into the world to being 40 with a worthless college degree and still possessing the mistaken belief that hard work=success.
Many people are poor because of age/immigration status - many people are poor because of their own poor choices, some are poor by personal preference, some are poor for medical reasons, a handful are poor because of bum luck and some are poor because they just want it to look that way on their tax return.

Can you show me any statistics on the amount of people that live in poverty (a) by personal preference or (b) because they just want it to look like they are poor on their tax returns?

Have you ever studied poverty? Read books about it and it's causes? Read studies? Or are you just speculating off the top of your head?

The good news is that in the US 'poor' is not a life sentence. Over 50% of people escape poverty and a little over 1 in 100 go on to become wealthy.

Care to cite evidence to support these assertions.

Regardless, how would you like to be living in a situation where you have only a 50% chance of ever escaping poverty and you have a mere 1% chance of ever being wealthy? Do those numbers actually sound good to you?

You will find no other nation in the world with a record like that!

And your evidence is .......?

Particularly one with as much ethnic diversity and with as much immigration (particularly of poor) as the US. People who clamor about poverty rates conveniently forget that the US takes on on a whole new burden each year of tens of millions of new immigrants - most of whom are poor.

And your evidence is .....?

I do note that you appear to point to ethnic diversity as one of the causes of poverty.

**SNIP rambiling pollyanish tribute to the wonders of capitalism

I am a big fan of capitalism properly regulated, but we are not living in the best of all possible worlds merely because we live in a capitalist society.

:

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Every libertarian wannabe should be required to read The Leviathan until they understand the folly of their ways.

It's all shite though. Stop driving by looking through the rear view mirror.

Can you show me any statistics on the amount of people that live in poverty (a) by personal preference or (b) because they just want it to look like they are poor on their tax returns?

Have you ever studied poverty? Read books about it and it's causes? Read studies? Or are you just speculating off the top of your head?
Nice try Peanut - implying ignorance through speculation. It doesn't fool anyone. Have you ever studied financial planning? Have you ever studied taxes? Do you know the difference between retained earnings and MAGI? Can you show me statistics on the frequency of tax evasion and Medicaid fraud? Do you read opinion letters about legal forms of tax avoidance? Do you actually help people with their taxes and finances or are you just speculating off the top of your head and/or regurgitating other people's propaganda?

See - it really doesn't work. The difference is - I'm not so arrogant as to expect it would.



Care to cite evidence to support these assertions.

I thought you were the one who studies poverty - you should already know this then. If you are so knowledgeable then why are you asking for my help? Come on Mr. Condescending - where is that vast knowledge of yours?


Regardless, how would you like to be living in a situation where you have only a 50% chance of ever escaping poverty and you have a mere 1% chance of ever being wealthy? Do those numbers actually sound good to you?

Yes they do - because fortunately the success rate is not random. It is not a drawing or lottery which requires luck. It is a testament to the success of others. I am in control of my destiny and my actions. I know that I can influence the results I experience. I also know that a majority of people before me have succeeded - some immensely. That is exactly the reason why the US experiences more immigration than any other nation - legal or otherwise.


And your evidence is .......?



And your evidence is .....?


Well - since you've asked so many times then it is apparent that this is something you really don't know. Here you go Mr. Knowledgeable;
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12863.htm

...On average, 47 percent of poor families remain poor...
...The likelihood that a child born into a poor family will make it into the top five percent is just one percent...
...3 percent of blacks making it from the bottom quarter of the income ladder to the top quarter, versus 14 percent of whites...

Sorry you have to read through so much propaganda to get to the results of the story - the author was obviously quite biased. The facts however he tries to spin them are right there for anyone to see. Poverty can be and is escaped with considerable frequency - with a noteworthy quantity moving to the opposite end of the spectrum (top 25% or top 5%).. But then , I'm sure you already knew that...


I do note that you appear to point to ethnic diversity as one of the causes of poverty.
I did not once say that diversity causes poverty. Nice try again, Peanut. Would you also like to suggest I hate people and eat babies?
I'm sure that you know from your vast unquestionable knowledge on this subject that poverty rates vary between ethnicity in all countries. (for a variety of reasons which immigration is a large consideration of) When talking about poverty rates then it is not improper to consider racial diversity when comparing national standards. When you look at the rankings you'll notice that none of the top nations enjoy anything close to the diversity of the US;
http://internationaltrade.suite101.com/article.cfm/world_s_richest_countries


I am a big fan of capitalism properly regulated, but we are not living in the best of all possible worlds merely because we live in a capitalist society.
Capitalism is a large part of US success - but I never once suggested it was the only reason. I am a big fan of Van Halen, properly regulated, but we are not living in the best of all possible worlds merely because Van Halen ROCKS!

Freedom is about doing what you wish with the resources you have without interference from anyone.Those are negative freedoms. As with most capitalists, you neglect the equally as important positive freedoms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

I'm hard pressed to disagree with any of your rant - nice to know that there are other selfish 'takers' out there. It's all about me, but I normally keep that fact to myself, everyone will figure it out eventually. Nice rant.

Those are negative freedoms. As with most capitalists, you neglect the equally as important positive freedoms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

You can't be serious when you say negative and positive rights are equal. Although I can see why a person might value things like social security or universal healthcare, there is no way they are on par with freedom of speech or freedom from violent crime. Which would you honestly rather live in: a society in which education was privatized, or a society in which slavery was legal?

Nice try Peanut - implying ignorance through speculation. It doesn't fool anyone. Have you ever studied financial planning? Have you ever studied taxes? Do you know the difference between retained earnings and MAGI? Can you show me statistics on the frequency of tax evasion and Medicaid fraud? Do you read opinion letters about legal forms of tax avoidance? Do you actually help people with their taxes and finances or are you just speculating off the top of your head and/or regurgitating other people's propaganda?

See - it really doesn't work. The difference is - I'm not so arrogant as to expect it would.

*sigh*

I merely asked (albiet in a sarcastic way) whether you could cite any support for the many bold assertions you made regarding poverty.

The answer to that question is apparently no.

Did you think that venting your spleen at me would distract me from your failure to support your argument?


I thought you were the one who studies poverty - you should already know this then. If you are so knowledgeable then why are you asking for my help? Come on Mr. Condescending - where is that vast knowledge of yours?

Again, you use sarcasm and an attack on me to try to cover-up the fact that you aren't answering my questions.

If you have no proof, just admit it.

Yes they do - because fortunately the success rate is not random. It is not a drawing or lottery which requires luck. It is a testament to the success of others. I am in control of my destiny and my actions. I know that I can influence the results I experience. I also know that a majority of people before me have succeeded - some immensely. That is exactly the reason why the US experiences more immigration than any other nation - legal or otherwise.

As your own source (see below) explains, your Horatio Alger claims don't withstand the test of reality. The scions of the rich stay rich, the poor primarily stay poor. The poor can work hard (and even work smart) and still be stuck being poor.

But then again you claim some people are poor merely because of personal preference for poverty or to gain an advantage on their taxes.

Well - since you've asked so many times then it is apparent that this is something you really don't know. Here you go Mr. Knowledgeable;
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12863.htm

Sorry you have to read through so much propaganda to get to the results of the story - the author was obviously quite biased. The facts however he tries to spin them are right there for anyone to see. Poverty can be and is escaped with considerable frequency - with a noteworthy quantity moving to the opposite end of the spectrum (top 25% or top 5%).. But then , I'm sure you already knew that...

Finally you cough up some evidence and it doesn't really prove what you assert.

I suggest anyone reading this to look at the article you cite. It is true you can cherry pick from it the statistics you cite, but the article rather convincingly explains why the spin you put on those numbers is bullshit.

I did not once say that diversity causes poverty. Nice try again, Peanut. Would you also like to suggest I hate people and eat babies?

I don't know if you hate poor people or eat babies, but you did suggest that diversity results in higher poverty rates. You confirm that point below.

I'm sure that you know from your vast unquestionable knowledge on this subject that poverty rates vary between ethnicity in all countries. (for a variety of reasons which immigration is a large consideration of) When talking about poverty rates then it is not improper to consider racial diversity when comparing national standards. When you look at the rankings you'll notice that none of the top nations enjoy anything close to the diversity of the US;
http://internationaltrade.suite101.com/article.cfm/world_s_richest_countries

1. I thought you weren't claiming that diversity causes poverty. Why then are you making an argument that correlates the two?

2. The "variety of reasons" why poverty rates vary between ethnicity includes racism -- but you conveniently ignore that.

3. If you had read the first article you cited, you would know that the study " did not include immigrants, who were not captured in the original data pool."

4. Your logic is flawed. Merely because some of the countries with lower poverty rates than the US are less diverse than the US (assuming that assertion is true) does not mean that poverty is correlated or caused by diversity.

Capitalism is a large part of US success - but I never once suggested it was the only reason. I am a big fan of Van Halen, properly regulated, but we are not living in the best of all possible worlds merely because Van Halen ROCKS!

Again, your sarcasm misses the point. We do not live in the best of all possible worlds, Candide.

Those are negative freedoms. As with most capitalists, you neglect the equally as important positive freedoms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

Positive rights are not freedoms, imo the idea of positive rights is absolute trite. (this doesn't mean that I don't think they can be a good thing, but I do not thing they are rights or freedoms).

*sigh*

I merely asked (albiet in a sarcastic way) whether you could cite any support for the many bold assertions you made regarding poverty.

The answer to that question is apparently no.

Did you think that venting your spleen at me would distract me from your failure to support your argument?



That is a much better way to ask. Thank you. It is nice to have a mutually respectful discussion with you. My answer was not 'no' it was 'all sarcasm will get you is the sarcasm'.
"Venting your spleen" makes me laugh.
http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/s/spleen.jpg
PULL MY FINGER! :)

To answer your question - not only do I study it - I MUST study it - along with everything else I shared with you. Economics, taxes, government benefits, all is a mandatory part of my profession and also is a part of my non-profit duties.




Again, you use sarcasm and an attack on me to try to cover-up the fact that you aren't answering my questions.

If you have no proof, just admit it.

I could have said the same of you.



As your own source (see below) explains, your Horatio Alger claims don't withstand the test of reality. The scions of the rich stay rich, the poor primarily stay poor. The poor can work hard (and even work smart) and still be stuck being poor.
Actually - no it does not - quite the contrary (and quite a bit more disconcerting) far more rich move down than poor move up. Nearly 80% of people born wealthy do not stay that way. WTF is happening to them?
By contrast, a child born rich had a 22 percent chance of being rich as an adult, he said

But then again you claim some people are poor merely because of personal preference for poverty or to gain an advantage on their taxes.
Absolutely - in fact there is an entire specialty of legal professionals dedicated to helping people do that; here is an example; http://www.floridamedicaidlawyer.com/

Finally you cough up some evidence and it doesn't really prove what you assert.
Actually - it does - point by point. I even walked you through it. Try looking again at the original post you questioned and the details I pointed to in the study.

I suggest anyone reading this to look at the article you cite. It is true you can cherry pick from it the statistics you cite, but the article rather convincingly explains why the spin you put on those numbers is bullshit.
Spin? - bullshit? - gee - and I thought you were finally starting to grow up and act civil. Do we have to go back to sarcasm-wars? It would seem to me that you'd rather buy spin than facts - I used the exact same facts as the article with no change whatsoever in the post you asked about. You were just looking for a reason to dismiss them. THAT is spin my dear man.



I don't know if you hate poor people or eat babies, but you did suggest that diversity results in higher poverty rates. You confirm that point below.
Really? I said that? Quote me - exactly - where I said that diversity causes higher poverty. I'd really like to see that. What I did say is that poverty varies by race demographics. That, Peanut, is fact. If you want to dispute fact then really I'm not the person you should be talking to.



1. I thought you weren't claiming that diversity causes poverty. Why then are you making an argument that correlates the two?

2. The "variety of reasons" why poverty rates vary between ethnicity includes racism -- but you conveniently ignore that.
Prove it. If racism where a cause of poverty then why would Asians and Jews have a lower poverty rate than Hispanics? Why would Hispanics have a lower poverty rate than blacks? Is it because racists like "dem Joos and beeners" more? Or is it maybe that answer isn't something so contrite.

3. If you had read the first article you cited, you would know that the study " did not include immigrants, who were not captured in the original data pool."
No - it does not. So? It does specifically point out that immigrants earn far more here they they do where they came from. Immigration is it's own justification. I would rather be a Mexican in America than anywhere else in the world - including Mexico.

4. Your logic is flawed. Merely because some of the countries with lower poverty rates than the US are less diverse than the US (assuming that assertion is true) does not mean that poverty is correlated or caused by diversity.

I feel I am repeating myself here. I have never said that diversity causes poverty. The point is that the other nations with comparable wealth are virtually homogenous. They do not have to deal with ethnic economic dispaity to the degree the US does. The fact that the US has to deal with such a thing - and does so with such success is a triumph for the American Way. THe other nations which are coping with that are stuck in the quagmire.


Again, your sarcasm misses the point. We do not live in the best of all possible worlds, Candide.
Nobody said we did, my dear Estragon.

Those are negative freedoms. As with most capitalists, you neglect the equally as important positive freedoms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

Your argument is bullshit. 'Positive rights' is a fallacious presumption.

Your argument is bullshit. 'Positive rights' is a fallacious presumption.

Care to explain why?

Care to explain why?

Probably not.

Probably not.

No, I didn't think so. ;)

Care to explain why?

For the same reason that the the tooth fairy is a fallacious presumption. The same reason that the flat earth is a fallacious presumption - the concept of 'positive freedoms' is invalid. Any freedom that is contingent on the action of another (person) is contradictory to freedom.

For the same reason that the the tooth fairy is a fallacious presumption. The same reason that the flat earth is a fallacious presumption - the concept of 'positive freedoms' is invalid. Any freedom that is contingent on the action of another is contradictory to freedom.

And so, instead of a system based on supportive actions, you would espouse total anarchy?

And so, instead of a system based on supportive actions, you would espouse total anarchy?

I think you skipped a few steps on that leap to your assumption...

Care to explain why?

Because in the majority of cases the attacking of some freedoms eventually leads to the attacking of others.

I think you skipped a few steps on that leap to your assumption...

No… if there are no positive rights, then each individual becomes solely responsible for themselves. Although no-one may infrige on each others' freedoms, there is also no moral obligation to offer each other any aid.

That is a much better way to ask. Thank you. It is nice to have a mutually respectful discussion with you. My answer was not 'no' it was 'all sarcasm will get you is the sarcasm'.
"Venting your spleen" makes me laugh.
http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/s/spleen.jpg
PULL MY FINGER! :)

To answer your question - not only do I study it - I MUST study it - along with everything else I shared with you. Economics, taxes, government benefits, all is a mandatory part of my profession and also is a part of my non-profit duties.

I could have said the same of you.

Actually - no it does not - quite the contrary (and quite a bit more disconcerting) far more rich move down than poor move up. Nearly 80% of people born wealthy do not stay that way. WTF is happening to them?

Absolutely - in fact there is an entire specialty of legal professionals dedicated to helping people do that; here is an example; http://www.floridamedicaidlawyer.com/

Actually - it does - point by point. I even walked you through it. Try looking again at the original post you questioned and the details I pointed to in the study.

Spin? - bullshit? - gee - and I thought you were finally starting to grow up and act civil. Do we have to go back to sarcasm-wars? It would seem to me that you'd rather buy spin than facts - I used the exact same facts as the article with no change whatsoever in the post you asked about. You were just looking for a reason to dismiss them. THAT is spin my dear man.

Meh. Again you try to hide the wheat by filling the air with bombastic chaff.

I originally asked you to provide support for 5 assertions. Although we have now exchanged several posts, your record of providing such support is laughably poor. Here are the assertions you made and the "proof" you've offered to support them:

1. A significant number of people are poor due to preference.

You've offered nothing to support this assertion.

2. A significant number of people are poor merely for tax purposes.

The only "proof" you've offered to support this assertion is the fact that their are lawyers that help people with estate planning and medicaid eligibility. So what?

3. 50% of people escape poverty and 1% of the poor become rich.

This is the one assertion you have backed up with evidence, but your evidence comes from an article and a study that both reach the exact opposite of your pollyanish conclusions. Here is the article (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12863.htm) and here is the study (http://nw08.american.edu/~hertz/HERTZ_MOBILITY_ANALYSIS.pdf) (pdf). You should read the article again. If you have not read the study, I suggest you do so.

For those reading this, lets quote from that article:
America may still think of itself as the land of opportunity, but the chances of living a rags-to-riches life are a lot lower than elsewhere in the world, according to a new study published on Wednesday.

The likelihood that a child born into a poor family will make it into the top five percent is just one percent, according to "Understanding Mobility in America", a study by economist Tom Hertz from American University.

By contrast, a child born rich had a 22 percent chance of being rich as an adult, he said.

"In other words, the chances of getting rich are about 20 times higher if you are born rich than if you are born in a low-income family," he told an audience at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think-tank sponsoring the work.

He also found the United States had one of the lowest levels of inter-generational mobility in the wealthy world, on a par with Britain but way behind most of Europe.

"Consider a rich and poor family in the United States and a similar pair of families in Denmark, and ask how much of the difference in the parents' incomes would be transmitted, on average, to their grandchildren," Hertz said.

"In the United States this would be 22 percent; in Denmark it would be two percent," he said.


4. No other nation in the world has a "record like that" regarding income mobility.

Although you've offered no proof of this assertion, you have rather ironically proven that it is true -- but in the exact opposite way from what you meant.

As the article (and underlying study) you cite documents, the U.S. has the worst income mobility rates in the developed world. Quotes to this effect are provided above.

5. Poverty rates in the U.S. are explained in part by immigration and "race demographics."

You've offered no proof of these assertions.

You've shown nothing to prove that poverty in the U.S. is caused or increased by immigration. (Nor have you explained why it would be significant.)

I grant you that poverty rates vary by race, but you have offered nothing to show why this means anything relevant to your assertions. To the contrary, you have backtracked (as I'll discuss more below).

So, when you set aside all the insults and insinuations, you've done a embarrassingly miserable job of answering my simple request for some proof for your bold assertions.

BTW, citing yourself as an authority, on the grounds that you "must study" these topics is lame and unpersuasive. If you really are an expert, then you should be able to cite to supporting evidence.

Really? I said that? Quote me - exactly - where I said that diversity causes higher poverty. I'd really like to see that. What I did say is that poverty varies by race demographics. That, Peanut, is fact. If you want to dispute fact then really I'm not the person you should be talking to.

What, pray tell, is the significance of this "fact"?

Prove it. If racism where a cause of poverty then why would Asians and Jews have a lower poverty rate than Hispanics? Why would Hispanics have a lower poverty rate than blacks? Is it because racists like "dem Joos and beeners" more? Or is it maybe that answer isn't something so contrite.

Meh. I've already done entire threads on these issues. If you want to enter a side debate about race, I'd be glad to join you in another thread. (In the meantime, look to the article you cited and the underlying study:

Breaking the survey down by race spotlighted this as the next most powerful force to explain why the poor stay poor.

On average, 47 percent of poor families remain poor. But within this, 32 percent of whites stay poor while the figure for blacks is 63 percent.

It works the other way as well, with only 3 percent of blacks making it from the bottom quarter of the income ladder to the top quarter, versus 14 percent of whites.

"Part of the reason mobility is so low in America is that race still makes a difference in economic life," he said.

If racism is not a cause of poverty, then why do you think it is significant that poverty varies by race demographics?

If racism is not a cause of poverty, what then is the cause of the severe "ethnic economic disparity" that you make so much of?


I feel I am repeating myself here. I have never said that diversity causes poverty. The point is that the other nations with comparable wealth are virtually homogenous. They do not have to deal with ethnic economic dispaity to the degree the US does. The fact that the US has to deal with such a thing - and does so with such success is a triumph for the American Way. THe other nations which are coping with that are stuck in the quagmire.

You are talking in circles. If diversity does not cause poverty, why do you keep emphasizing that "other nations with comparable wealth are virtually homogenous" and "do not have to deal with ethic economic disparity to the degree the US does"?

Nobody said we did, my dear Estragon.

Um. Yes, you at least implied we did in response to my assertion that we didn't.

But keep up the clever insults, they appear to be all you have in your arsenal.

No… if there are no positive rights, then each individual becomes solely responsible for themselves. Although no-one may infrige on each others' freedoms, there is also no moral obligation to offer each other any aid.

Theres a moral obligation but it is forced by your concience not some sort of government figure.

Theres a moral obligation but it is forced by your concience not some sort of government figure.
That's not a moral obligation. That's a preference. And you have to respect the preferences of those who differ from you on this point.

Conscienceless people exist.

You can't be serious when you say negative and positive rights are equal. Although I can see why a person might value things like social security or universal healthcare, there is no way they are on par with freedom of speech or freedom from violent crime. Which would you honestly rather live in: a society in which education was privatized, or a society in which slavery was legal?Neither. I would reject both a society that lacks negative rights and a society that lacks positive rights.

Positive rights are not freedoms, imo the idea of positive rights is absolute trite. (this doesn't mean that I don't think they can be a good thing, but I do not thing they are rights or freedoms).It's more that the distinction between them that is trite than anything. It is all simply freedom.

Your argument is bullshit. 'Positive rights' is a fallacious presumption....

For the same reason that the the tooth fairy is a fallacious presumption. The same reason that the flat earth is a fallacious presumption - the concept of 'positive freedoms' is invalid. Any freedom that is contingent on the action of another (person) is contradictory to freedom.Except of course, that rights by definition are contigent upon the action of another. It isn't a right unless you have other people protecting your ability (right) to do it. It is merely something you have the ability to do.
An individual living alone on a deserted island has no rights.

Can you show me any statistics on the amount of people that live in poverty (a) by personal preference or (b) because they just want it to look like they are poor on their tax returns?

Have you ever studied poverty? Read books about it and it's causes? Read studies? Or are you just speculating off the top of your head?

Out of sheer masochistic curiosity:

Has anybody on this thread ever actually lived in poverty?

I'm not talking about that one month that your family had to cancel HBO because money got tight. And I don't mean how you had to get your own job to pay for gas for the car you were given for your 16th birthday. I mean, seriously, has anybody here actually tried being really poor?

Because if you're going to sit here and claim that there are a significant number of people who genuinely prefer to live in poverty, then I'm gonna have to go ahead and point out that you are basically saying that every last one of those people is completely and totally bugfuck insane.

Out of sheer masochistic curiosity:

Has anybody on this thread ever actually lived in poverty?

I'm not talking about that one month that your family had to cancel HBO because money got tight. And I don't mean how you had to get your own job to pay for gas for the car you were given for your 16th birthday. I mean, seriously, has anybody here actually tried being really poor?

Because if you're going to sit here and claim that there are a significant number of people who genuinely prefer to live in poverty, then I'm gonna have to go ahead and point out that you are basically saying that every last one of those people is completely and totally bugfuck insane.
Why?

I've known of homeless people (anecdotal homeless people) who become homeless intentionally because they preferred the low-stess lifestyle of being homeless.

So, even ignoring the people who knowingly took risks and become poverty-stricken through bad luck (or bad risks), some people may well be poor because they would rather be poor. We can't rule that out.

There certainly are many people that prefer to live with little money. Like the guy that stopped working for my father because he said that wellfare was enough for him, so why bother working? Or the homeless couple I met passing through Denver that subsist on what they could get off the street corner because it's easier than finding a real job that will allow them to move every week to a new city. There's the homeless guy in my hometown that has had plenty of job opportunities......his choice to punch people he works for is just that....his own choice. Of the poor people that I personally know, the majority are poor because that is what they choose.

Personally, I detest you. But your candor made me laugh untill I choked on my beer. Sorry though, your Engish teacher was correct.lol

Except of course, that rights by definition are contigent upon the action of another. It isn't a right unless you have other people protecting your ability (right) to do it. It is merely something you have the ability to do.
An individual living alone on a deserted island has no rights.

Rights and freedoms are not the same. Regardless - you are wrong again. Rights can only be infringed by others i they are not granted by them. People can ban together to protect their rights - but they are protecting them - not creating them.

You have a right to food, water, air, life, etc. You can get these yourself. You do not have a right to force anyone else to provide them for you. You have a 'right' to an education only so long as there are people willing to provide it. You cannot compel anyone to provide it. If you are inflicting your demands and wants on another person that is not a right and it is contrary to freedom.

The primary premises in determining a right is 1) can it be infringed? and 2) can it be attained without coercion?

Some would argue - with some merit - that this is only the definition of 'fundamental 'rights. I would argue those are the only ones that matter. Other so-called 'rights' are tenuous and amorphous - they can only meet the merits of fundamental rights with considerable wrangling of circumstance. These so called 'rights' are probably best described with a different term than "rights" - which does not yet exist in the English language. "Standard privilege" comes closest to what I consider an accurate description.

My great grandfather did not have a right to receive free television signals over the air: It didn't exist. I have the "standard privilege" of this because it now does. I do not have more rights than him - but I enjoy a privilege he did not - one which - where I am - is a near universal privilege.

This whole point is a typical distraction brought on by people who's real case (that government is the source of everything good in the world) is so weak that they can only debate minutia instead of merit. I'll play for a little while - but eventually I'll call you on it and say - it doesn't fucking matter. Regardless of definitions - the government is NOT watching out for you. No government is. If you live your life expecting them to - well - get used to disappointment.

Ronald Reagan said that big government is not the solution - it is the problem. George Washington said essentially the same thing 200 years earlier - Government is like fire - a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Why?

I've known of homeless people (anecdotal homeless people) who become homeless intentionally because they preferred the low-stess lifestyle of being homeless.

So, even ignoring the people who knowingly took risks and become poverty-stricken through bad luck (or bad risks), some people may well be poor because they would rather be poor. We can't rule that out.

Interesting comment from someone who opined in another thread:

Anecdotal evidence shouldn't persuade anyone of anything.

Is it just other people's anecdotal evidence that is proscribed?

Out of sheer masochistic curiosity:

Has anybody on this thread ever actually lived in poverty?

I'm not talking about that one month that your family had to cancel HBO because money got tight. And I don't mean how you had to get your own job to pay for gas for the car you were given for your 16th birthday. I mean, seriously, has anybody here actually tried being really poor?

Because if you're going to sit here and claim that there are a significant number of people who genuinely prefer to live in poverty, then I'm gonna have to go ahead and point out that you are basically saying that every last one of those people is completely and totally bugfuck insane.

Yes. I have been poor. I have been too poor to pay for a place to live on my own. Too poor to pay for new clothing. Too poor to consider buying a car. Poor enough to limit my grocery shopping to the base essentials. Poor enough to Walk 4 miles daily instead of drive to save gas. Poor enough to turn off the heat and AC to save money for food.

So fucking what?

And yes - I knew - and still know - people who prefer to live under the poverty level. Some of them do as a lifestyle choice. Some do only as a bookkeeping entry. (poor only to the IRS) Some of the latter use less then scrupulous means - you may be amazed just how common it is. (mostly business owners) Some use legal means. Some use legal - yet still unethical means.

I would not be so presumptuous as to call any of them insane. With the exception of the people cheating on their taxes most are quite capable and intelligent human beings. You would do well to respect that.

Interesting comment from someone who opined in another thread:

Is it just other people's anecdotal evidence that is proscribed?
I remember when I stalked Arthais like this because his views on the law directly contradicted his views on religion.

Anecdotal evidence offers no generalisable information, but it can be used to counter contrary universal claims.

If I have a single black sheep, that sheep tells me nothing about whether sheep generally are black. This is the part where anecdotal evidence isn't useful.

However, if you come along and claim that all sheep are white, I can prove you wrong by pointing to my one black sheep.

The difference is in whether the anecdote is being used to support or refute a universal claim.

No… if there are no positive rights, then each individual becomes solely responsible for themselves. Although no-one may infrige on each others' freedoms, there is also no moral obligation to offer each other any aid.

You mean people would be responsible for themselves??? (gasp!)


Moral obligation =/= neither rights or freedoms. Morality is a different concept alltogether. Try staying on the same page.

Meh. Again you try to hide the wheat by filling the air with bombastic chaff.

snip

So, when you set aside all the insults and insinuations, you've done a embarrassingly miserable job of answering my simple request for some proof for your bold assertions.

snip

But keep up the clever insults, they appear to be all you have in your arsenal.

If you don't like 'clever insults', 'bombastic chaff' and 'insinuations'(and sarcasm in general) then I would suggest you refrain from such frivolity yourself - particularly when initiating a dialog with someone. You have no room to criticize.

If you don't like 'clever insults', 'bombastic chaff' and 'insinuations'(and sarcasm in general) then I would suggest you refrain from such frivolity yourself - particularly when initiating a dialog with someone. You have no room to criticize.

Is faking a claim to the high horse really the best you can come up with in response to my substantive comments?

Such quibbling is unimpressive.

I remember when I stalked Arthais like this because his views on the law directly contradicted his views on religion.

Anecdotal evidence offers no generalisable information, but it can be used to counter contrary universal claims.

If I have a single black sheep, that sheep tells me nothing about whether sheep generally are black. This is the part where anecdotal evidence isn't useful.

However, if you come along and claim that all sheep are white, I can prove you wrong by pointing to my one black sheep.

The difference is in whether the anecdote is being used to support or refute a universal claim.

Don't flatter yourself. I'm not "stalking" you. I've been posting in this thread in response to other posters. I read your anecdotal comment and was struck by how starkly it contrasted with your blanket statement that "anecdotal evidence shouldn't persuade anyone of anything." I'm glad to see that you can distinguish between uses of anecdotal evidence and you admit your statement in the other thread was erroneously overbroad.

As to the value of your anecdotal evidence in this case, the challenged posed by Bottle was as to the claim that there "are a significant number of people who genuinely prefer to live in poverty." Your one black sheep doesn't prove a significant number of sheep are black, does it? (Especially in a context of millions of sheep.)

Yes. I have been poor. I have been too poor to pay for a place to live on my own. Too poor to pay for new clothing. Too poor to consider buying a car. Poor enough to limit my grocery shopping to the base essentials. Poor enough to Walk 4 miles daily instead of drive to save gas. Poor enough to turn off the heat and AC to save money for food.

So fucking what?

And yes - I knew - and still know - people who prefer to live under the poverty level. Some of them do as a lifestyle choice. Some do only as a bookkeeping entry. (poor only to the IRS) Some of the latter use less then scrupulous means - you may be amazed just how common it is. (mostly business owners) Some use legal means. Some use legal - yet still unethical means.

I would not be so presumptuous as to call any of them insane. With the exception of the people cheating on their taxes most are quite capable and intelligent human beings. You would do well to respect that.Big deal.
I know a homeless guy who freely admits he spends most his money on booze, makes more panhandling than he did while working and prefers sleeping in the woods. But guess what? That's an exception, not a rule.

Any idea on the percentage of poor who are mentally ill? I may not know the exact percentage, but I've been in a prime position to meet tons.

Rights and freedoms are not the same.True, however sometimes they coincide.

Regardless - you are wrong again. Rights can only be infringed by others i they are not granted by them. People can ban together to protect their rights - but they are protecting them - not creating them. Nope. The banning together is what creates rights. Rights are fundamentally a legal construct.

You have a right to food, water, air, life, etc. You can get these yourself.The ability to obtain food, water, air, etc. is not the same thing as having the right to those things. You're not suggesting that simply because I have the ability to do something, I have the right to, are you?

You do not have a right to force anyone else to provide them for you. You have a 'right' to an education only so long as there are people willing to provide it.Indeed. I have a right to education so long as I'm living under a social contract that says I do.

You cannot compel anyone to provide it. If you are inflicting your demands and wants on another person that is not a right and it is contrary to freedom.If the social contract that a person voluntarily lives under says that I have the right to an education, then I am not compelling anyone to provide it.

The primary premises in determining a right is 1) can it be infringed? and 2) can it be attained without coercion?You neglected the first point: does it exist in the first place?

My great grandfather did not have a right to receive free television signals over the air: It didn't exist. I have the "standard privilege" of this because it now does. I do not have more rights than him - but I enjoy a privilege he did not - one which - where I am - is a near universal privilege.If the priviledge is created as a result of the social contract then it is a right.

This whole point is a typical distraction brought on by people who's real case (that government is the source of everything good in the world) is so weak that they can only debate minutia instead of merit. I'll play for a little while - but eventually I'll call you on it and say - it doesn't fucking matter.Er...you posted a massive post earlier and a major part of that post was talking about this subject.

Regardless of definitions - the government is NOT watching out for you. No government is. If you live your life expecting them to - well - get used to disappointment.

Ronald Reagan said that big government is not the solution - it is the problem. George Washington said essentially the same thing 200 years earlier - Government is like fire - a dangerous servant and a fearful master.I didn't say that the state was watching out for me. (State is a more accurate term for what we are referring to than government.) Nonetheless, it is the social contract that creates rights. Again, a person living alone on a deserted island has no rights.


I realize that this might be a bit too long for you to reply to fully, so responding to the things I've bolded would be sufficient.

That isn't what a right is, Jello. A right cannot be granted....it is there automatically, and can only be respected or taken away. Now, whether you believe in the concept of rights or not is your call.

i believe in probability and best intrests, both of individuals and communities of them. as for rights, well i like the that sounds, and its usefulness in an argument, but in all honesty, the real universe doesn't give a rats ass what's fair. it does however run on probability.

and then there is this thing called suffering, which most awairness prefer to avoid experinecing. now the reality of probability is that the more of it there is, the more likely each and every last one of us are to experience it.

that, it doesn't take too much rocket science, i hope, makes it kind of pretty desirable to avoid adding to the amount of suffering there is. even, if possible, do something about reducing it.

now grated some suffering is in the eye of the beholder, which can be just as painful none the less, and some no one prefers to make too big of a deal about.

but some it's pretty hard to deny too. and none of it is generally sought ought or held as desirable in and of itself (outside of specialized contexts and among persons of, let us say, interesting and uncommon taste).

so at any rate there is a mechanism, that it doesn't really take rocket science to understand, though it is unfortunately all too deniable, by which suffering is caused. ok, i mean besides one person randomly inflicting it on another, or doing so for their mutual amusement.

when people put what other people think of them as a person, or trying to impress each other in some way, pretty much any way, ahead of the kind of world we all have to live in, well there's a statistical consensus of those values we actually, and most people don't seem to even notice or give a fart, though most also seem compelled to pretend that they do, actually live by, and any way, this statistical consensus is the birthplace of incentives, sometimes called 'markets'. now these particular values give rise to the very incentives that motivate the policies that cause suffering.

so you see the point of all this, is that there is a kind of 'univerasal', that means everybody's, or almost everybody's, best intrests, in at any rate, not creating the conditions that cause suffering. and that, again a wee little bit of rocket science for some i know, means not creating the incentives for creating the conditions that cause suffering, and that, here's the big leap of connecting the dots, ... wait for it, ... means not putting trying to impress each other, ahead of the kind of world we all have to live in.

oh yah, "rights": well rights could be looked at as a way of saying all that without having to say any of it. although its usually used in some other way entirely, like the supposed right, and the pretense that freedom is that 'right' to screw someone else over if they are an inconvenience to accumulating the means of trying to impress them.

i'm i getting through to anyone how absurd the 'right' to cause suffering is?

i know it's a little difficult, but i'm pretty sure most people could, eventually, 'get it'.

=^^=
.../\...

Why?

I've known of homeless people (anecdotal homeless people) who become homeless intentionally because they preferred the low-stess lifestyle of being homeless.

Yeah, I'ma go ahead and just call bullshit on that.

Sorry, but you're lying.

First of all, you probably haven't actually known a single homeless person. You may have stopped to talk to that one homeless dude on your way to get coffee that one time, but if you want to claim that you know homeless people then you'd better have been homeless yourself.

Second of all, even if you have talked to homeless people, they probably lied to you. I know this may shock you, but most homeless people are actual human beings with intelligence and--shock!--pride. I used to brag about how fun it was to be "on my own," mainly because I didn't want anybody to know how uncomfortable, gross, and crappy it was.

Third of all, no. Saying that homeless people enjoy their lifestyle because it's low stress is like saying that WW1 veterans stayed in the trenches because they liked how low-stress it was.

Actually the one homeless guy in my town is homeless because he chooses to be. He has a palm pilot and a laptop. He's protesting that fact that his shop got closed years ago.

That isn't what a right is, Jello. A right cannot be granted....it is there automatically, and can only be respected or taken away. Now, whether you believe in the concept of rights or not is your call.If it's there automatically, then how do we know it's there? How would we know that the Divine Right of Kings (for instance) is not an accurate representation of what rights are?

Conscienceless people exist.

Tend to believe that in most cases they don't. There are people who choose to ignore their concience but there are very few who actually have no moral foundations to adhere to.

If it's there automatically, then how do we know it's there? How would we know that the Divine Right of Kings (for instance) is not an accurate representation of what rights are?

don't ask me. i'm just trying to make it clear what rights are, i don't have any special knowledge about their nature, source, or whether they exist or not.

don't ask me. i'm just trying to make it clear what rights are, i don't have any special knowledge about their nature, source, or whether they exist or not.You're silly, but mildly amusing. Keep it up. :)