Wealth distribution

[AlbqOwl]

If a person is in poverty, you have already admitted defeat, the poverty existed, the birth of the child did not create the poverty. It is a classic example of you putting the horse in front of the cart. You are not interested in causing the reduction of poverty, your argument is simply a morality argument, not an economics argument. There are a number of reasons why the poverty exists, but you are not interested in finding economic solutions, you want to make it a "culture", ie race argument. We know why certain races have higher levels of poverty, you know why it is, I have shown you over and over why it is......but your argument always ignores this.....and then continually you try to rehash the Murray argument that you read on some rw sites.

You are not interested in creating a middle class, you want weaker labor power, you want cheaper imports. You cannot blame poor parents when the things you want destroys the jobs that those parents used to have.

Since you have no clue what I am interested in or what I want or what I want to pay for imports and my argument in no way blamed poor parents, and because I know with a great deal of confidence that what I want does not destroy jobs, I think we have nothing left to discuss. Congratulation on your psychiatric degree but I do believe you need to ask for your money back. Do have a nice day.

 

[AlbqOwl]

You are confusing correlation with causation.

The cause of poverty is unemployment and low pay. If a family has conservative values and sticks together, but neither parent can find a decent job, they will be living in poverty as a family. And if a single mother can find a good job, she and her children will not be impoverished.

I am confusing nothing with causation. I am looking at the large picture which is what government should always do instead of cherry picking examples and holding those up as the way it is.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Greetings, Gimmesome truth. :2wave:

No one except our government is trying to eliminate the middle class in this country! The middle class is our only buffer against America becoming a third-world country with a few elite at the top and the rest down below. The middle class aren't the ones signing agreements with other countries to do the manufacturing we used to do - the boneheads in charge of running our government, and I include both parties in my condemnation, are the ones responsible. And when our labor unions agree with corporate management that the newest auto plants can be built in Mexico or other Central and South American countries they are also responsible for our downward slide. Who in H*** decided that we should become the "service" economy of paper pushers that we have become? A pox on them from all the hard workers who used to make a living here! Please explain why the TPP agreement will benefit everyone except /B] the US. Sure, things might get produced more cheaply in Asia, but what good will that do anyone here if we don't have money to buy even cheap imports. :smash:

Um, the TPP is just one example in a long line of neoliberal economic policy proposals since the late 70's, and cons that you support are fully endorsing them.

There is no way a con voter can argue that they support the middle class if they support conservatives. Conservatives do not support middle class building policies, they are fully in the pockets of the 1%.

 

[AlbqOwl]

They aren't justified in having kids while poor, but that isn't why they are poor. That should be obvious. You are just trying to rescue a losing argument now.

My argument from the beginning is how a society helps the poor become unpoor. There is no shame whatsoever in society unless people don't do what they can do to escape poverty but expect others to support them. We have developed a society that too often looks to government to take care of them and or provide what they did not do to provide for themselves. And that has resulted in the destruction of the middle class and a society with far too many children in poverty that didn't have to be there. The left seems to think that if those who succeed were less successful then everybody else would be more successful. I am arguing that it doesn't work that way. You narrow the wealth disparity by encouraging those without wealth to do what they need to do to acquire more wealth, and not by punishing those who already did that.

 

[Fearandloathing]

In a society with a more equitable distribution of income, more people would be able to buy their own homes.

In a society with a skewed distribution of income, a small number of people own the homes and rent them out to a large number of renters. The renters earn money by producing at their jobs, but instead of a mortgage payment that adds something to their wealth, they pay rent, which adds to the landlord's wealth, while the landlord produces nothing.

Ah, yes, the new buzzword for "utopia"....."more equitable distribution of income". I think that used to be called communism, which failed, but no matter.

Since this myth, disproven again and again through the last century won't die, suppose you tell us what will be different this time. How will you deal with the unfairness, the imbalance, the resentments.

Could you elaborate as to who will determine "more equitable" and where does the money come from?

Then there are moral issues, why should a man whose job is flipping burgers make as much as, say, a nurse? A toll taker on an expressway makes as much as a cop?

Idealism blinds, my friend. The United States is already divided on such lines, and there is a nasty war brewing. Your side says "sure, why not give people two years of unemployment", the other side says "re-train them", but in the end, one guy gets to lounge around and get drunk, while the other still works. If you don't think there are REAL issues, take a drive through northern Washington and then down into Walla Walla

There is a reason this thinking keeps being rejected either at the ballot box or in conflict, it is because it doesn't work. I was in Poland covering solidarity about two years before The Wall came down. It took about three hours to see what was wrong and why socialism doesn't work. Sooner or later, because everyone feels cheated, it can only be maintained by force.

I could see that in the eyes of the Russian soldiers I met. They knew there would be no order without either them leaving, or opening fire on civilians. American liberals love to point at Norway as a great socialist success; you've never been there and seen the quality of care for the elderly and the lack of services - even with Norway's "drill, baby, drill".

No, to get a true sense of what you're talking about, go to Greece, then Spain and then drop in on Venezuela. The economic layer between haves and have nots is far more evident there than in the US.

 

[Absentglare]

Moving the goalposts. It was at one point in time in this thread that everyone should be guaranteed their 'sufficient' from the government paid for by others who wouldn't be receiving the same from the government. Now, for some reason, it's morphed into education funding.

I'd point out that education funding is a local issue, not a federal one.



And now it's morphed into class warfare, complete with the typical left end of the political spectrum's rationalization of 'it's not their fault, it's the white man's fault. What's next? White Privilege? Complete with a White Privilege tax? :roll: How is this NOT racist in intent and in it's application?



There you go, putting words in my mouth that I didn't post. I guess it must be your opinion that you are reflecting there.

Saying it's a local issue is part of the problem.

Only taking good care of rich neighborhoods is giving systematic advantage to the already wealthy. Isn't it enough that those kids get the best nutrition, best computers, best transportation, best textbooks, best tutors, etc ? Do they have to get significantly better schools, too?

The ridiculousness of this "locality" position is that it's more expensive for us to pay for their meals for the rest of their life than to simply educate them properly.

Of course, half the people in this country have been told to never give any power to the federal government due to some misguided fear.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Since you have no clue what I am interested in or what I want or what I want to pay for imports and my argument in no way blamed poor parents, and because I know with a great deal of confidence that what I want does not destroy jobs, I think we have nothing left to discuss. Congratulation on your psychiatric degree but I do believe you need to ask for your money back. Do have a nice day.

LOL...let me get this....you wanted me to "justify" the actions of poor parents having children, that this was not you saying the poor parents were to blame for having poor children!

Please, keep posting your nonsense, it is like shoot owls in a barrel.

 

[Absentglare]

How do you correlate AlbqOwl's post with shaming?

Uhhh... Emphasis mine :

It will but it also needs to include a cultural expectation that honorable people earn what they have, feed the children they bring into the world, and are embarrassed if they are forced to accept charity and will do everything they have to do to avoid being a burden to anybody. It hasn't been so long ago that such was the norm in America and there was no entitlement mentality of any kind. That is what builds a strong middle class, narrows income disparities, and helps everybody.

 

[Absentglare]

I'm sorry but along with seeing how to benefit people differently than leftwingers see that, somewhere along the way I was taught that only idiot argues with an. . . .

Do have a nice day.

I accept your surrender.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Ah, yes, the new buzzword for "utopia"....."more equitable distribution of income". I think that used to be called communism, which failed, but no matter.

Um, actually, what most folks point to was......wait for it......a roughly 30 year period....in America.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Uhhh... Emphasis mine :

So how is that shaming anybody. But if you think people who don't feed their kids or otherwise support their families and think it is just fine and dandy to be supported by everybody else, no matter how large a burden that is, should be proud of that and applauded--well that's what you think.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Um, actually, what most folks point to was......wait for it......a roughly 30 year period....in America.

Thank you. No clue where it came from or what it is supposed to mean but just at face value, your graph beautifully illustrates what unwise welfare and entitlements do to the distribution of wealth in America.

 

[Ganesh]

Thank you. No clue where it came from or what it is supposed to mean but just at face value, your graph beautifully illustrates what unwise welfare and entitlements do to the distribution of wealth in America.

LOL, as the younger folks say......I don't think I can take much more of this....

 

[polgara]

Um, the TPP is just one example in a long line of neoliberal economic policy proposals since the late 70's, and cons that you support are fully endorsing them.

There is no way a con voter can argue that they support the middle class if they support conservatives. Conservatives do not support middle class building policies, they are fully in the pockets of the 1%.

Well, the way it stands, it looks like everyone will have to depend upon the liberals to buy the cheap imports then, since none of them are in the pockets of the 1%, huh? We'll just need to overlook those who are, and I can cite examples if you wish, as you doubtless already know. I had a reason for including both parties in my condemnation, not just the conservatives, and why you chose to paint with an extra-large brush to include all conservatives is neither correct nor fair. Part of my family are Dems, but they would be surprised to learn they are liberals since most of them own businesses, and they don't feel the two are all-inclusive by any means, since they consider themselves "old style" Democrats. Whatever.....

 

[eohrnberger]

Uhhh... Emphasis mine :

It will but it also needs to include a cultural expectation that honorable people earn what they have, feed the children they bring into the world, and are embarrassed if they are forced to accept charity and will do everything they have to do to avoid being a burden to anybody. It hasn't been so long ago that such was the norm in America and there was no entitlement mentality of any kind. That is what builds a strong middle class, narrows income disparities, and helps everybody.

The bolded doesn't say anything about shaming, especially not public shaming. I think you are reaching. The bolded doesn't say it one way or another. Could very well be that this discussion is being held in private.

 

[Absentglare]

So how is that shaming anybody. But if you think people who don't feed their kids or otherwise support their families and think it is just fine and dandy to be supported by everybody else, no matter how large a burden that is, should be proud of that and applauded--well that's what you think.

Declaring that someone should be embarrassed ?

Embarrass : cause (someone) to feel awkward, self-conscious, or ashamed.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Declaring that someone should be embarrassed ?

Embarrass : cause (someone) to feel awkward, self-conscious, or ashamed.

Yes, I strongly believe those who do not or will not support their kids should be embarrassed. Hugely embarrassed. I strongly believe that those who expect others to support them because they screwed up or just didn't want to do what they needed to do to support themselves should be hugely embarrassed. If that was you, would you be proud of it? Do you really believe that you aren't supposed to take care of your family or yourself and that others are supposed to do that?

 

[Frank Apisa]

Actually, I do know that for sure. I have been in contact for several decades with many people who have rented homes and apartments it is a very common theme that the places are often trashed. One person I know had to raze three of their rental homes because of the treatment renters had given them. Many kept deposits of renters for trashing homes and apartments but those deposits often didn't come any where near paying for the damages. I have often thought about buying homes and renting them out, increasing my net worth, but it is just too much of a gamble. People who are more responsible are more responsible and people who are not, are not. That's just the way life is. You take their incentive away to be responsible and it spills over to every aspect of their life.

I have donated to and helped Habitat for Humanity build homes for the poor and their most important qualification for being a recipient is to help build homes for others first because HH knows that if these people can show a sense of work, pride, and responsibility then HH knows they have a better chance of long term success with that house. They know if they just build a house for the poor and just give it to them with no strings attached then the outcome for that house is very questionable.

MR...you are being unreasonable in this. I've owned homes that I have rented out...and I have NEVER had a house trashed. One of them, so that you do not think I have owned and rented only in safer neighborhoods, was a house at the Jersey shore...which I once rented to young people. I spoke with them...and they assured me they would not do the kind of damage that can sometime be done to shore houses during summer rentals...and I accepted their assurances. And all worked out well.

The street I live on right now has several houses that I know are rentals...and they are tended to better than a couple that are owner occupied.

Your generalization is one of those self-serving things that really do not belong.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Except that Frank seems to think we should just give the poor money, cars, homes, etc. with nothing in return and, in fact, we are doing ourselves a favor by keeping them out of the way.

That is a pathetic attempt to distort what I have been saying, MR. You should be above that kind of thing.

 

[Frank Apisa]

That isn't Frank's argument at all.

Our argument (I think Frank shares a similar view) is that we can't keep on using the labor market as our basis for distributing income, because when labor isn't in demand (and it no longer is), there is no incentive to pay them. If machines did all of the necessary labor, how do you distribute the income? Give everything to the few owners of the machines? It doesn't work, the economy would crumble; not for lack of labor, or innovation, or natural resources, but for lack of demand. So it's a little ridiculous to stick with the present system if we can already see problems arising.

Thank you, John. I think MR realizes that his characterization of my argument is a distortion...but apparently that does not stop him from using it.

I appreciate that you are in approximately the same place I am on this issue.

 

[eohrnberger]

Saying it's a local issue is part of the problem.

Only taking good care of rich neighborhoods is giving systematic advantage to the already wealthy. Isn't it enough that those kids get the best nutrition, best computers, best transportation, best textbooks, best tutors, etc ? Do they have to get significantly better schools, too?

The ridiculousness of this "locality" position is that it's more expensive for us to pay for their meals for the rest of their life than to simply educate them properly.

Of course, half the people in this country have been told to never give any power to the federal government due to some misguided fear.

Historically school funding is a local issue, and a state issue.

I don't disagree that education for everyone is important in getting them started out in life on a good course. This needs to be emphasized by both parents and teachers.

But then, the education experience is often spoiled for some due to lack of decorum in the classroom.

School falls apart after teachers told not to punish minority students because of white privilege

by Rachel Alexander, 19 Dec, 2015

School falls apart after teachers told not to punish minority students because of white privilege | John Hawkins' Right Wing News
Schools are becoming increasingly violent and controlled by gangs – even at the elementary level, due to political correctness. It is making life hell for the students who want to learn as well as their teachers. One school in Minnesota has become so bad a teacher sent an anonymous letter to a local newspaper reporter revealing the horrific conditions.

EagNews.org reports,

The teachers of the St. Paul school district are “scared” of some of their students and the dangerous environment in their classrooms, according to an anonymous teacher who sent a heartfelt message to a reporter from the local newspaper.
But the environment in the district may be unlikely to change any time soon. That’s because Valeria Silva, the district superintendent whose policies have been blamed for the chaos in the schools, has a new three-year contract with a big raise.
…
Out-of-school suspensions and expulsions have declined dramatically, particularly for black students, who in prior years received an inordinate number of those types of punishments.

The new forgiving polices were approved by Silva and the school board, in consultation with the Pacific Educational Group (PEG).
PEG officials believe that American schools are plagued with “white privilege.” That means they are based on white cultural norms for the benefit of white students, to the detriment of black students and other minorities.
PEG, which signs consulting contracts with school districts like St. Paul, counsels local school officials to compensate for racial inequity by adopting more forgiving disciplinary policies toward students, particularly black students.
…
The lack of discipline has led to a series of frightening incidents at St. Paul schools. In the past two weeks a high school teacher and middle school teacher were physically attacked by students, and the high school teacher required hospitalization.
The St. Paul Federation of Teachers reacted to the most recent violence by threatening to strike if the school board fails to address the discipline issue.
​

The anonymous teacher wrote, “Today each classroom has 5-6, if not more, of these violent, disruptive students. Daily, the talk in the lunchroom and teachers’ lounge is about how the ‘tipping point’ has arrived. We can no longer control our classes.”
Politically correct policies do not stop racism, because who believes that the teachers are really just disciplining minority students because they’re racist? These policies are destroying the lives of the other children who are unable to receive a decent education if their teachers can’t control their classrooms. Shame on Silva, she should be replaced with someone who is colorblind and treats everyone equally, as our Constitution guarantees.

I think you'd have to start with getting the stupidity of the liberal indoctrination and excessively PC out of the school systems and the classrooms before students will get the most benefit they can from the education experience.

 

[Moderate Right]

Automation is driven by the desire for greater production, the capitalist is ALWAYS going to seek the lowest labors costs, there has never been a desire for corporations to seek power sharing with labor and it has been capitalists in control of legislation that has stopped anything like that from happening. The evidence is clear, the majority of states have "right to work" laws. This isn't Germany where labor has an equal number of seats at the table, where domestic manufacturing is protected from below cost imports.

You are not interested in creating strong labor markets, you are a capitalist who wants unfair labor positions to reduce your costs, to maximize your profits, to extract the absolute most without regard to living conditions. We know what the "30 Great Years" were, they were not great because of huge disparities in income, in fact it was the opposite.

I don't want unfairness on either side. Both sides should have equal amount of power. The business shouldn't have an advantage as they once used to and labor shouldn't have the unfair advantage that they do now.

 

[Moderate Right]

MR...you are being unreasonable in this. I've owned homes that I have rented out...and I have NEVER had a house trashed. One of them, so that you do not think I have owned and rented only in safer neighborhoods, was a house at the Jersey shore...which I once rented to young people. I spoke with them...and they assured me they would not do the kind of damage that can sometime be done to shore houses during summer rentals...and I accepted their assurances. And all worked out well.

The street I live on right now has several houses that I know are rentals...and they are tended to better than a couple that are owner occupied.

Your generalization is one of those self-serving things that really do not belong.

Your own response kind of backs up my point, "and they assured me they would not do the kind of damage that can sometime be done to shore houses during summer rentals". It is a generalization but generalizations are generalizations for a reason, because they are true more than they are not.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

My argument from the beginning is how a society helps the poor become unpoor. There is no shame whatsoever in society unless people don't do what they can do to escape poverty but expect others to support them. We have developed a society that too often looks to government to take care of them and or provide what they did not do to provide for themselves. And that has resulted in the destruction of the middle class and a society with far too many children in poverty that didn't have to be there. The left seems to think that if those who succeed were less successful then everybody else would be more successful. I am arguing that it doesn't work that way. You narrow the wealth disparity by encouraging those without wealth to do what they need to do to acquire more wealth, and not by punishing those who already did that.

Wow - so you mean that all we have to do, as a society, is to tell the poor to go out and acquire more wealth, huh? That will solve our economic problems? I had no idea it was so simple.

I think you might be a genius. Please run for president before it's too late.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Ah, yes, the new buzzword for "utopia"....."more equitable distribution of income". I think that used to be called communism, which failed, but no matter.

Is that what we called our economy in the '50's and '60's? Communism? I'm going to have to re-read my history books, I guess.

Since this myth, disproven again and again through the last century won't die, suppose you tell us what will be different this time. How will you deal with the unfairness, the imbalance, the resentments.

Could you elaborate as to who will determine "more equitable" and where does the money come from?

Then there are moral issues, why should a man whose job is flipping burgers make as much as, say, a nurse? A toll taker on an expressway makes as much as a cop?

Idealism blinds, my friend. The United States is already divided on such lines, and there is a nasty war brewing. Your side says "sure, why not give people two years of unemployment", the other side says "re-train them", but in the end, one guy gets to lounge around and get drunk, while the other still works. If you don't think there are REAL issues, take a drive through northern Washington and then down into Walla Walla

There is a reason this thinking keeps being rejected either at the ballot box or in conflict, it is because it doesn't work. I was in Poland covering solidarity about two years before The Wall came down. It took about three hours to see what was wrong and why socialism doesn't work. Sooner or later, because everyone feels cheated, it can only be maintained by force.

I could see that in the eyes of the Russian soldiers I met. They knew there would be no order without either them leaving, or opening fire on civilians. American liberals love to point at Norway as a great socialist success; you've never been there and seen the quality of care for the elderly and the lack of services - even with Norway's "drill, baby, drill".

No, to get a true sense of what you're talking about, go to Greece, then Spain and then drop in on Venezuela. The economic layer between haves and have nots is far more evident there than in the US.

If these weren't such moronic arguments, I'd respond to them.