It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Real Reason Poverty Exists

page: 7
24
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob
For a start, all of those resources and all of that technology is mostly available because of "big business". There's a reason why humanity spent thousands of year pottering about at a cottage industry level, then suddenly BANG! From Industrial Revolution to walking on the moon in a mere 200 years.

BTW, you are wrong, technology does not "progress" for ANY of the reasons you cited. Technology progresses because those with the most wealth request a technological means be created to increase production and also to simultaneously reduce autonomy of the lower class populations (as those lower class populations grow beyond the capabilities of the older technology used to previously control their actions).

This is a much longer discussion, that I would prefer not to get into, but to put it simply, old world rulers like Charlemagne did not need tech like cell phones to help them control their holdings, so, no investment was made to develop such technology (because they could maintain efficient control of their holdings using human capital alone, which is cheaper than having to develop a brand new, untested technology). However on the flip side, a modern business leaders cannot control their fiat holdings without the assistance of evolving technology, like the smart phones & social media, because populations today are much larger than they were in Charlemagne's era and those lower class populations also have communication tech available to them that would allow for then to sustain much more organized revolts against said business leaders (unionization, boycotting, rioting, etc).


originally posted by: EvillerBob
Ahhh, I see. It's that super special secret technology that corporations are keeping from us.
Well, most of that technology is available to you, Joe Public, free via online patent databases. That's the patent trade-off - the patent holder gets legal protection for a period of time, in return for making the information publically available. There's nothing to stop you making things for your own personal use.

Again, no, the introduction of tech to the masses does not work that way. In short, man has ALWAYS had the ability to create and manufacture things like rockets, computers, cell phones, etc. BUT, the need to create them only emerges when lower class populations become too large for the upper classes to control using the previously proven, but less technological methods.


originally posted by: EvillerBob
That's not a problem with business, that's a problem with you. Somebody with skills, experience, and a negotiating mindset will not end up an "unfair, and unequal trade". If you walk into an interview with nothing more to offer than the hundred other applicants, then you have nothing useful to trade except how much compliance you are prepared to offer.

Don't like it? Be better. If you can't be better, get used to getting less than those who can.

The world is what you make of it. Sounds perfectly fair to me.

I addressed this point in my earlier post, first. There are not and never will be enough jobs for those looking, able to perform, qualified for and willing to work. The market, as it currently exists, CANNOT provide employment for everyone. If you would like to read my earlier post, IN FULL, here is the link:

thread1100891 pg2 #pid20252791


originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: boohoo

I agree with your assessment. However, the answer is not simply just redistributing wealth so these people don't have to work. The problem is our educational system is not keeping up with the structural changes in the workforce and giving kids the skills necessary to prepare them for jobs of the future.


I'll recap some of what I posted, for those that missed it. Despite the age of this example (the period between 1348-1381) it is a relevant parable that gives some insight into what we are facing today and gives clues as to how our current problems can be solved SOLELY through grass-roots efforts, initiated by regular people, without consent of the "Owners of Capital" class.

The largest “recorded” wage increase to happen in history, for non-land owing, wage-laborers, post the introduction of fiat currency, was after the black death pandemic, in the 14th century, especially in post-pandemic England. It has been estimated that farm wages in England doubled between 1350 and 1450.

But, how was that possible?

Because “the owners of capital”, post the black-death-pandemic, still needed wage-laborers, but there was a HUGE shortage of able bodied people. So, in order for ANY work to get done, they had to pay the peasants and other undesirables, more money, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE. This principle is still at work today, when you take the time to recognize that sizable portions of the population are actively discouraged from participating in the full-time labor market. This is easily done, by throwing people in prison, forcing them to attend formal school longer and allowing more people to claim themselves as disabled or collect long/short term welfare

After the Black Death ran its course, in the 14th century, a Peasants Revolt was triggered by the "Statute of Labourers 1351". By 1381, the sustained wage growth for non-land owing, wage-laborers was rising so quickly that the English parliament, a few decades post the Black-Death, under King Edward III, enhanced the existing "Statute of Labourers 1351". This updated statute was then used by the "Owners of Capital", as an artificial means to drive down the wages of non-land owning peasants. Despite market conditions signalling the need for increased wages

The Statute of Laborers; 1351 ("Statutes of the Realm," vol. i. p. 307.)

Think about that for a minute, the MARKET signaled that wages should have been higher, due to actual labor shortages caused by the Black Death, but the “owners of capital” still didn't want to pay it, so they wrote a law saying why they didn't have to conform to demands of the market.

So, that's where we are today, a form of Neo-feudalism, driven by Fascist ideology and practices. Remember the USA is a former "slave owning nation", that fought "tooth & nail" to maintain the legal right to own slaves; even turning indentured servants, whom by contract, were set to be released in 7 years, into indefinite slaves through legal loopholes.

Can any of us really expect a country founded on such values to willingly devise humane solutions for both current and future employment shortages? History has CLEARLY shown us, that there is a cultural preference among the upper classes, in the USA, to HEAVILY invest in the creation of methodology that increases their ability to obtain unpaid labor. Usually by any means necessary, such as, war, legal loopholes, illegal trade agreements and tech that impedes the collective bargaining power of laborers (Uber, Homejoy, Handybook, other Concierge Apps, etc).
edit on 14-1-2016 by boohoo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: boohoo

BTW, you are wrong, technology does not "progress" for ANY of the reasons you cited. Technology progresses because those with the most wealth request a technological means be created to increase production and also to simultaneously reduce autonomy of the lower class populations (as those lower class populations grow beyond the capabilities of the older technology used to previously control their actions).

This is a much longer discussion, that I would prefer not to get into, but to put it simply, old world rulers like Charlemagne did not need tech like cell phones to help them control their holdings, so, no investment was made to develop such technology (because they could maintain efficient control of their holdings using human capital alone, which is cheaper than having to develop a brand new, untested technology). However on the flip side, a modern business leaders cannot control their fiat holdings without the assistance of evolving technology, like the smart phones & social media, because populations today are much larger than they were in Charlemagne's era and those lower class populations also have communication tech available to them that would allow for much more organized revolts against said business leaders (unionization, rioting, etc).

...

Again, no, the introduction of tech to the masses does not work that way. In short, man has ALWAYS had the ability to create and manufacture things like rockets, computers, cell phones, etc. BUT, the need to create them only emerges when lower class populations become too large for the upper classes to control using the previously proven, but less technological methods.


Wow. Ok. Even for ATS, some of that is... "out there".

Technology progresses and has always progressed. Even when Charlemagne - who built and controlled an empire spanning most of Western Europe - was busy telling people not to invent cell phones, 8th Century contemporaries of his were busy developing and improving the heavy plough, the horse collar, the 3-field system, the crank, the Catalan forge... people weren't sitting around waiting for the king to say "invent something for me!"

If someone had demonstrated a cell phone - heck, even a radio or a wired telegraph system - to Charlemagne, he would have jumped on it. So why didn't he have these systems? It's not because he didn't want them, it's because they weren't even imagined at that point in history. Did he need those systems? No. Britain managed to run an Empire when it could take a letter more than a year to travel from one end to the other. We don't need those systems now, in fact. We use them because they make things work better.

Charlemagne is actually a very interesting example here because he didn't really trust his "human capital" that much and put a lot of time and effort into keeping oversight and control of the sons he placed in various positions. I'd bet good money that he would have thrown bags of gold at the person who could have given him near-instant communications across his empire.

So where does technology come from? Is it created only when some monarch or merchant decides they need a certain device invented? Sometimes, sure. The king wants a better seige engine, his admirals want a better clock for navigating, the president wants to put a man on the moon. The people with money are willing to pay for a facility.

Very often, however, it's because the guy breaking his back in the fields wants to make his life a little easier. He notices something, has an idea, discusses it with the local blacksmith... next thing you know, a new plough design is being spread around. Or some bright young person has an idea, develops it, then tries to sell it to rich people. These people need businesses to buy their ideas, simply because production needs money for space, equipment, workers, etc. It also needs a market for those ideas to make it worthwhile for businesses to invest.

Why did I identify the Industrial Revolution as being important? The limitation of technology has always been production. Everything from penicillin to computers to cars to cell phones has always relied on people developing ways to create them faster and cheaper. That's why you can drive your car to the pharmacist and pick up a pack of Amoxicillin after browing on ATS. You can do it because you can afford the car, the computer, and the drugs. You can afford them because the Industrial Revolution completely changed our approach to manufacturing and created markets that couldn't have been reached before.

Mass production not only makes use of emerging technology, but it encourages further development (for improving the means of productions) and enables further development (by making new goods cheap enough to be sold to more people).



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Oops, hit quote instead of edit. I blame Charlemagne.
edit on Ev18ThursdayThursdayAmerica/ChicagoThu, 14 Jan 2016 13:18:03 -06008452016b by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: boohoo

BTW, you are wrong, technology does not "progress" for ANY of the reasons you cited. Technology progresses because those with the most wealth request a technological means be created to increase production and also to simultaneously reduce autonomy of the lower class populations (as those lower class populations grow beyond the capabilities of the older technology used to previously control their actions).

This is a much longer discussion, that I would prefer not to get into, but to put it simply, old world rulers like Charlemagne did not need tech like cell phones to help them control their holdings, so, no investment was made to develop such technology (because they could maintain efficient control of their holdings using human capital alone, which is cheaper than having to develop a brand new, untested technology). However on the flip side, a modern business leaders cannot control their fiat holdings without the assistance of evolving technology, like the smart phones & social media, because populations today are much larger than they were in Charlemagne's era and those lower class populations also have communication tech available to them that would allow for much more organized revolts against said business leaders (unionization, rioting, etc).

...

Again, no, the introduction of tech to the masses does not work that way. In short, man has ALWAYS had the ability to create and manufacture things like rockets, computers, cell phones, etc. BUT, the need to create them only emerges when lower class populations become too large for the upper classes to control using the previously proven, but less technological methods.


Wow. Ok. Even for ATS, some of that is... "out there".

Technology progresses and has always progressed. Even when Charlemagne - who built and controlled an empire spanning most of Western Europe - was busy telling people not to invent cell phones, 8th Century contemporaries of his were busy developing and improving the heavy plough, the horse collar, the 3-field system, the crank, the Catalan forge... people weren't sitting around waiting for the king to say "invent something for me!"

If someone had demonstrated a cell phone - heck, even a radio or a wired telegraph system - to Charlemagne, he would have jumped on it. So why didn't he have these systems? It's not because he didn't want them, it's because they weren't even imagined at that point in history. Did he need those systems? No. Britain managed to run an Empire when it could take a letter more than a year to travel from one end to the other. We don't need those systems now, in fact. We use them because they make things work better.

Charlemagne is actually a very interesting example here because he didn't really trust his "human capital" that much and put a lot of time and effort into keeping oversight and control of the sons he placed in various positions. I'd bet good money that he would have thrown bags of gold at the person who could have given him near-instant communications across his empire.

So where does technology come from? Is it created only when some monarch or merchant decides they need a certain device invented? Sometimes, sure. The king wants a better seige engine, his admirals want a better clock for navigating, the president wants to put a man on the moon. The people with money are willing to pay for a facility.

Very often, however, it's because the guy breaking his back in the fields wants to make his life a little easier. He notices something, has an idea, discusses it with the local blacksmith... next thing you know, a new plough design is being spread around. Or some bright young person has an idea, develops it, then tries to sell it to rich people. These people need businesses to buy their ideas, simply because production needs money for space, equipment, workers, etc. It also needs a market for those ideas to make it worthwhile for businesses to invest.

Why did I identify the Industrial Revolution as being important? The limitation of technology has always been production. Everything from penicillin to computers to cars to cell phones has always relied on people developing ways to create them faster and cheaper. That's why you can drive your car to the pharmacist and pick up a pack of Amoxicillin after browing on ATS. You can do it because you can afford the car, the computer, and the drugs. You can afford them because the Industrial Revolution completely changed our approach to manufacturing and created markets that couldn't have been reached before.

Mass production not only makes use of emerging technology, but it encourages further development (for improving the means of productions) and enables further development (by making new goods cheap enough to be sold to more people).


Two popularized examples are the Antikythera mechanism, which has been estimated to be from 67 BC and the Baghdad Battery, estimated to be from 250 BC. So, why would YOU surmise objects, such as, the Antikythera mechanism and Baghdad Battery exist when they should not?

You can believe whatever you like, there are plenty of archeologists, working in multidisciplinary teams along and other data scientist, working for the feds modeling exactly what described. Wallstreet has also latched onto this idea within the last decade, which is why were are seeing such a huge explosion in venture capital funding and a reduction in traditional R&D spending.

Big business and government can now predict technological advancements based almost solely on population growth trends. I worked as a grad student for a professor subbing for defense contractor in the early 2000's, whom was working on this very topic. Its not my problem if you don't understand the basis of why, what I said above, is true.

If you have any intellectual curiosity, at all, you will take a very serious look into the phenomena that I have described. So, if you really have the academic chops to actually understand what you are reading, your mind will be blown as a result.
edit on 14-1-2016 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

Sometimes some of the thoughts people put up are so far out in left field all you can do is sit back and chuckle.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: EvillerBob

Sometimes some of the thoughts people put up are so far out in left field all you can do is sit back and chuckle.


Fact is, I got paid to do grunt work in this field for a defense contractor. On the flip side, neither of you are going to be getting paid, anytime soon, to prove the results of this research false.

Its actually quite funny that Amoxicillin is a mentioned as part of your counter example. Amoxicillin was created by Beecham Group, using funding provided by Bristol-Meyers. Bristol-Meyers was founded by two NON-SCIENTIST, trust fund babies, turned investors, John Ripley Myers and William McLaren Bristol. You could not have provided a more apt, REAL LIFE, example of the concept that I presented above.

Also, the basis for your rebuttals are about a hundred years out of date, unknowingly, you are both subscribing solely to the 19th century theory of "Unilineal Evolution".
edit on 14-1-2016 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: boohoo

Two popularized examples are the Antikythera mechanism, which has been estimated to be from 67 BC and the Baghdad Battery, estimated to be from 250 BC. So, why would YOU surmise objects, such as, the Antikythera mechanism and Baghdad Battery exist when they should not?



The AK mechanism is fascinating. How does it tie in to your idea that technology is driven solely by those with the most wealth seeking a means to increase production while reducing the autonomy of the lower classes? Do you happen to know exactly who made it, why they made it (not the function of it, by what inspired them to create it in the first place), or who paid for the time and effort required to develop it in the first place?

It's a bit unfair to pull out a random artefact and say "aha! that proves my point!" without making it clear (i) exactly which point, and (ii) how it goes about proving it.

The Baghdad Battery is almost certainly not a battery. I wasn't aware that anyone but the fringiest of fringe believers still touted that as an ancient technology. I'd usually consider this a warning flag, but I'm in a good mood.

Why do I believe they exist when they should not? Actually, I believe they exist when they were created, no sooner, no later. Who are you to say they should not exist then?

My belief in your understanding of unilineal evolution is somewhat shaken by observing your claim of its application. If anything it's close to a neoevolutionist approach, though I'd reject that tag as well. Technology, however, is evolutionary, regardless of whichever social structure you attempt to build around it.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: boohoo

Two popularized examples are the Antikythera mechanism, which has been estimated to be from 67 BC and the Baghdad Battery, estimated to be from 250 BC. So, why would YOU surmise objects, such as, the Antikythera mechanism and Baghdad Battery exist when they should not?



The AK mechanism is fascinating. How does it tie in to your idea that technology is driven solely by those with the most wealth seeking a means to increase production while reducing the autonomy of the lower classes? Do you happen to know exactly who made it, why they made it (not the function of it, by what inspired them to create it in the first place), or who paid for the time and effort required to develop it in the first place?

It's a bit unfair to pull out a random artefact and say "aha! that proves my point!" without making it clear (i) exactly which point, and (ii) how it goes about proving it.

The Baghdad Battery is almost certainly not a battery. I wasn't aware that anyone but the fringiest of fringe believers still touted that as an ancient technology. I'd usually consider this a warning flag, but I'm in a good mood.

Why do I believe they exist when they should not? Actually, I believe they exist when they were created, no sooner, no later. Who are you to say they should not exist then?

My belief in your understanding of unilineal evolution is somewhat shaken by observing your claim of its application. If anything it's close to a neoevolutionist approach, though I'd reject that tag as well. Technology, however, is evolutionary, regardless of whichever social structure you attempt to build around it.


I admire your patience.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: boohoo

Its actually quite funny that Amoxicillin is a mentioned as part of your counter example. Amoxicillin was created by Beecham Group, using funding provided by Bristol-Meyers. Bristol-Meyers was founded by two NON-SCIENTIST, trust fund babies, turned investors, John Ripley Myers and William McLaren Bristol. You could not have provided a more apt, REAL LIFE, example of the concept that I presented above.


You can take it that way if you wish. However, I chose Amoxicillin as a modern derivative of penicillin - one of the earliest "miracle drugs" that changed the world. It only managed to do that, however, because they had sufficient knowledge to design a system for producing it in large quantities. More specifically, the people who developed the medicine itself, then had to find a business that was able to supply the money, equipment, and expertise to develop the means of mass production for the medicine.

If not for the means of production being at a stage to support the volume and distribution necessary, one of the most importantant medicines in the world would have remained a useful oddity available only to the very few who could afford it.

Charlemagne definitely didn't tell Fleming to develop a method of extracting penicillin. I think I would have remembered that from history classes. In fact, Fleming was largely driven to search for these things based on his own experiences treating the wounded during WWI.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob
Charlemagne definitely didn't tell Fleming to develop a method of extracting penicillin. I think I would have remembered that from history classes. In fact, Fleming was largely driven to search for these things based on his own experiences treating the wounded during WWI.


You're right a guy named Howard Florey told Flemming how to develop a method of extracting penicillin AND it was Florey whom secured the funding to buy the lab equipment needed to conduct the work. Again, the financial drivers of why tech is developed do not stem from the places that you seems to be assuming.

I don't seem to remember "K-12 history class" mentioning that part of the story either.


originally posted by: EvillerBob
The AK mechanism is fascinating. How does it tie in to your idea that technology is driven solely by those with the most wealth seeking a means to increase production while reducing the autonomy of the lower classes? Do you happen to know exactly who made it, why they made it (not the function of it, by what inspired them to create it in the first place), or who paid for the time and effort required to develop it in the first place?

It's a bit unfair to pull out a random artefact and say "aha! that proves my point!" without making it clear (i) exactly which point, and (ii) how it goes about proving it.

The Baghdad Battery is almost certainly not a battery. I wasn't aware that anyone but the fringiest of fringe believers still touted that as an ancient technology. I'd usually consider this a warning flag, but I'm in a good mood.

Why do I believe they exist when they should not? Actually, I believe they exist when they were created, no sooner, no later. Who are you to say they should not exist then?

My belief in your understanding of unilineal evolution is somewhat shaken by observing your claim of its application. If anything it's close to a neoevolutionist approach, though I'd reject that tag as well. Technology, however, is evolutionary, regardless of whichever social structure you attempt to build around it.


I asked you why objects, such as, the Antikythera mechanism and Baghdad Battery exist when they should not? I did not give an answer, but will do so below.

I also said that you are the one subscribing to Unilineal Evolution, not myself. Nothing you have said so far contradicts that you have based your argument on anything other than Unilineal Evolution theory.

I mention the Antikythera mechanism and the Baghdad Battery because despite likely being the first of their kind, they are one-offs, with similar devices not being created until several centuries later. So, regardless of their utility and advanced capabilities, the lack of other examples proves, in earlier time periods, to a degree, that the cost to create them was greater than simply using human labor to accomplish the same task, at that particular time. However, when populations increased, the utility of these types of devices increased along with that growth and the costs to make these devices ended up eventually being less than using human capital to accomplish the same task, specifically during those periods with the highest population levels. Hence, much later in history, you see many more devices, similar to the Antikythera mechanism and the Baghdad Battery, in the archeological record.

I'll give a very small insight into the portions of the DOD project that my professor was asked to work on, which were not Classified (as were the separate projects being completed by the other academic archeologists). My professors specialty was in stone age technology and his most famous work was on how climate affected what specific Stone age Technologies were developed by isolated groups, whom were not in contact with one another. He found that the pending on the temperate zone, certain Stone Age technologies were guaranteed to be developed. So despite having no contact with one another, groups of humans separated by thousands of miles would arrive at the same technological solution, in order to solve the same problem. He wrote a book in the early 80's, that still sells many copies today and despite its age, most of it contents still stand today unchallenged.

Now how does all this relate to a DOD study focused on technology development?

My professor was asked to extrapolate his research even further, to see if there was also a correlation with population growth. He found that there were distinct population growth markers that would move a society from stone age tool makers into the early bronze age. It didn't matter where these ancient people were located in the world, nor what temperate zone they were in. When the population hit certain levels, more advanced technology emerged AND the technology developed was always the same between unrelated groups, having had no contact with one another, located thousands of miles apart. By the end of the study he had a graduated scale correlating the population level to a specific tools development. So, as was found in his study, some groups did not develop certain technologies because they never reached the determined, minimum population level, while other groups took far less time to develop the so-called "more advanced" technologies when their populations spiked over shorter periods of time than their peers.

Now, he did learn eventually that another archeologist, that he knew personally, was also asked to work on this same DOD project. This professors specialty area was Iron Age trash site/dumps. He was asked to do the SAME THING, in his specialty area, as my professor was, which was to track population growth milestones and correlate those milestones with the creation of more advanced technology. His findings were exactly the same, when populations reached certain levels, more advanced technology emerged AND the technology developed was always the same between unrelated groups, whom had no contact with one another and were located thousands of miles apart.

Now consider that many other academics were asked to do the same thing for their research areas (across all ages and eras) and it becomes quite easy to see what kinds of patterns the DOD was trying to deduce. Remember this wasn't an NSF grant, it was a private sector DOD contract (under a defense company holding the Fed contract). This was 15 years ago now, so, do you REALLY think that big corps and government, at this point in time, can't predict specific emerging technology and then use that knowledge, attempting to corner the markets before smaller inventors can grab any portion of the pie, while developing their own products, unknowingly, in parallel with the Big Boys?

For example, what do you think is behind the push for self driving cars? Nobody will be able to afford them for another 20 years, at least, nor does there doesn't' seem to be any immediate need for them in this same time frame?

I'll tell you why, the introduction of consumer grade, Self-driving cars, depends entirely on population growth, nothing else.
edit on 14-1-2016 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Edumakated

Defeatism and excuses for the corrupt in every word of that drivel.


"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

-Thomas Sowell


I don't know about that. Many benevolent dictators have retained power simply by giving enough to their citizens in exchange for loyalty. It's only in democratic systems where things don't get done because there always exists a need to create voting issues.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

I hope this isn't a serious post. If so, wow...

Video game goals are an acceptable alternative to real world achievement?
Conservatives created a need for people to work?
Comparing modern times to the lifestyles of Indians several generations ago?
You commented that women are now able to work (which is great!) and then go on to complain that there is too much need for people to work. You contradict yourself there. Women largely entered the workforce because of a need for a 2nd income.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion


Please explain why your proposed world is any less of a fantasy.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Why should anyone get something for nothing? I'll grant you this...your plan does have a chance to bring up the quality of life for some of the poorest people, but it's at the forced expense of the rest of society.

People should be given incentives to donate charitably or make other choices that reduce poverty. It shouldn't be forced. I very much agree that we need to help out the poor, but I don't think that people should be forced to donate. Let's be honest - a lot of the poorest people are there because of decisions they made in life, such as drugs, and they will continue that. I don't care how much people claim that they need help and chances to change - many of them won't, and I should have the choice to not support that lifestyle.

There are truly poor people out there - people who are poor because the world has basically # on them. Not because of addiction or lifestyle choices. These people need help. People who earn more should be better encouraged to donate to these people, but forcing me to give money to people is wrong.

Some people don't deserve something for nothing. Others - notably the truly poor I describe above - will do something with their new chance at life. That's not something for nothing.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Puppylove

Most people work for nothing in today's world and these jokers would have them working for even less while they personally sit high on the hog judging everyone else from some cushy job they barely do any work at themselves.

They should go tell the 44% of homeless people working full time jobs that they earn more than what they should and to work harder and stop being lazy.

Yeah there's 3 billion job openings!

Oh wait that's only in fantasy land where our economy works for more than 1% of the worlds population...

Yeah in fantasy land.


Are you honestly implying there's a need for 3 billion jobs? Really?

You people bother me. You distort reality in any way possible to get handouts. You're like children who don't get their way and come up with creative ways to argue their case.

What is SO wrong about working harder to get more in life?



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Bone75

Seeing as McDonald's these days fight tooth and nail to not provide free lunch to their employees, not seeing Walmart doing anything that benevolent anytime soon.


Both of those corporations are gleaming examples of honesty and respect. Of how the community should function.

They are also gleaming examples of business has been totally corrupt by Wall Street and bottom line policy with total disregard for the people employed and only caring about how much they make for their buddies.

Jerkoffs deserve to die.


I think you deserve to die as much as they do. At least we can say that the people behind McDonalds and Walmart have created millions of jobs, both in their stores and at suppliers, logistics, etc. Millions of people have an income - one they are content with and can live off - from these jobs. You only hear from the very small percentage of ungrateful deadbeat whiners like yourself who think they have any right to say someone else should die.

What a disgusting thing to say.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Btw, maybe it has been listed here already, but none of you seem to be addressing the fact that because the current administration changed the poverty line measure to a percentage of median income rather then a hard line amount ... there will ALWAYS be poverty no matter how much we raise the baseline in this country.

Those on the bottom will, by definition, always be in poverty.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join