Income Inequality.

[Kfox]

What does one thing have to do with the other?

If anything, that is exactly what we would expect when the police is ineffective to prevent homocide.

It proves the police job is a lot more than just protecting the property of the rich.

 

[Kfox]

So, not having the advantage of rich parents is good for people?

I didn’t say that

Everybody should have the same chance to become self-made?

How is it different if my parents were poor, and I self-made become a millionaire vs my parents are millionaires, and I self-made become a billionaire?

That's what I was arguing for.50% of US households have or had no taxable income? That's really, really bad.

If you think that’s bad, lots of people with no jobs at all thus paid no taxes STILL get tax refund checks! How da hail does someone payin’ zero taxes get a tax refund check at the end of the year??? Oh yeah; by having babies they can’t afford….. But then that’s a whole new conversation

 

[Kfox]

You seem unfamiliar with business. Corporations with at least three layers of hierarchy - labor beneath middle management beneath directors, stockholders, and owners - rarely have any moral component to it. Family-owned businesses may be better to employees (and customers), but not businesses where there is a layer between the workers and those who decide policy.

Problem is; those Family-owned businesses are usually the jobs that only pay $12 per hr with no health care, and few benefits, and the Corporations with at least three layers of hierarchy are usually the Union jobs that pay it’s line workers a living wage with benefits and health care.

Have you seen the term "malicious compliance"? These are stories about employees treated badly at work by bosses with bad attitudes and bad ideas, and the employee complies knowing how much it will hurt the boss BECAUSE of that fact:

"Malicious compliance (also known as malicious obedience) is the behavior of strictly following the orders of a superior despite knowing that compliance with the orders will have an unintended or negative result. It usually implies following an order in such a way that ignores or otherwise undermines the order's intent, but follows it to the letter. A form of passive-aggressive behavior, it is often associated with poor management-labor relationships, micromanagement, a generalized lack of confidence in leadership, and resistance to changes perceived as pointless, duplicative, dangerous, or otherwise undesirable. It is common in organizations with top-down management structures lacking morale, leadership or mutual trust. In U.S. law, this practice has been theorized as a form of uncivil obedience, and it is a technique which is also used in art practice."

Where I work we have a saying “let the system fail, it’s the only way to enact sensible change.”

 

[Kfox]

First off, it seems you're misquoting him.
Second, he's a LOT more credible than you are

How is what he said different than what I said? And do you disagree with what I said?

 

[Koldo]

It proves the police job is a lot more than just protecting othe property of the rich.

Obviously it does more than protecting the property of the rich, but that was not the point. The point was that it is the rich that have a lot of lose by not having a police, not the poor.

 

[Kfox]

What happens is that there is no longer a business enterprise that is unable to provide positive value for all the people that engaged in it. And that is exactly as it should be. If a business enterprise is not increasing the well-being of everyone engaged in it, people should not be engaged in it. It's very simple.

When you say all the people engaged in it, do you mean 100% of the people engaged in this business have to receive positive value? Or only a reasonable percentage.

They don't have that option, now. No one is selling anything "at the cheapest price possible" under capitalism. In fact, everyone is out to get as much money as possible out of every trade regardless of the value being offered in return. So the poor are far more likely to be forced into buying junk since they can only afford the least expensive used cars. And of course that is exactly what happens.

But those poor feel it is better to have what you call “junk” than to have nothing at all

How about we let people sell rat poison covered with sugar as children's cerial, and when the children start getting sick, everyone will know the sellers are liars and criminals and will stop buying their poison. Because nothing should EVER stand in the way of or regulate a business trying to make a profit. Right?

There are policies and laws in place requiring business to provide safe products; I am not suggesting such laws should not exist

 

[Kfox]

Obviously it does more than protecting the property of the rich, but that was not the point. The point was that it is the rich that have a lot of lose by not having a police, not the poor.

Why don't cha try living in an economically oppressed high crime neighborhood for a couple of days and see just how long that attitude will last.

 

[Kfox]

I'm curious, because this leads to other unspoken consequences.

For example, if a 3 year old boy is brought to a hospital with a life threatening injury, but the parent/s of that child cannot pay for his care, do you think there is any obligation to help the child or should the parents be turned away?

It is my understanding that all hospitals are legally required to treat you even if you are unable to afford payment. There are many cases where homeless people will claim illnesses on cold days just to get the paramedics to take them to the hospital allowing them a warm room for a few moments while being treated.

 

[Koldo]

Why don't cha try living in an economically oppressed high crime neighborhood for a couple of days and see just how long that attitude will last.

Do you have any idea on what you are talking about?

Do you know who posits the biggest threat to the poor in an 'economically oppressed high crime neighborhood'? The police.

 

[timothy1027]

Let me stir the pot a little here: Uncontrolled Capitalism appears to be Civilized Slavery.

 

[Kfox]

Do you have any idea on what you are talking about?

Yes! I was born in, and lived much of my youth in an economically oppressed high crime neighborhood

Do you know who posits the biggest threat to the poor in an 'economically oppressed high crime neighborhood'? The police.

Then why do poor people in economically oppressed neighborhoods call the police more than anyone else? Sounds like you've been listening to too many of those "limousine liberals" who fight for the rights of the criminal at the expense of the victim.

 

[Kfox]

Let me stir the pot a little here: Uncontrolled Capitalism appears to be Civilized Slavery.

Have there ever been a society that allowed uncontrolled capitalism?

 

[Nakosis]

Perhaps a better way to say it is; as a society we set as a goal to ensure that every child have a reasonable opportunity to meet their potential.

That's a fine goal but people seem to disagree on how to go about it.
Or perhaps they don't really care.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But it IS the legitimate propose of humans engaging in commerce.

You've moved the goalpost. You wrote, "the actual purpose of engaging in commercial trade: to serve the well being of all those involved in the trade." I answered, "that's not why most people go into business." Now you're saying legitimate purpose. I still disagree. Making a living is a legitimate purpose for going into business.

Not exploitation.

Exploitation is also not the purpose of going into business. It wasn't my purpose.

it is a fundamentally harmful system.

I listed many of the remedies that government can employ to protect workers. Competing for dollars in an unregulated environment with no social safety net doesn't work except for a very few, but the system works well for most in the hands of progressives.

Capitalism is why I left the Army and went to university, where I studied long hours competing for a medical school seat learned skills that were valuable to society that not everybody could acquire. I was a computer programmer for the Army in the early 70's and was very good at that god enough that I was loaned from my unit in northern Maryland to write code for the Army that my predecessors had been unable to write, and for which plans were being made to subcontract the job out to IBM for about $50,000. No problem. I sat in my little windowless cubicle for a few months and wrote the programs. I had been up all night finishing up. My sergeant, a man of no distinction or talent, came in in the morning, sat down on my work laid out on a table cracking a tape reel (yeah, magnetic tape and punch cards), and read me the riot act for the appearance of my uniform.

I had a safe, secure path to retirement in the military, and if there wasn't a chance for me to make a better life for myself than that, I'd probably have stayed programming 9-5 for the military for little in return working under people I didn't respect and who didn't understand me. But I wanted more, and I was willing to work for it for long hours for decades. That's the power of the profit incentive.

Regarding exploitation, on a playing field that protect workers and allows them to earn a working wage if they work fulltime, people aren't exploited. They are expected to develop useful and saleable skills including the trades and to apply themselves. Absent mental illness, able-bodied people of little intellectual ability can do that. If you make nothing of yourself, you'll end up your back or selling Big Macs, but I don't consider that exploitation.

Incidentally, the reward I sought and the reason I was willing to work so much harder than the military required was not just a good income. How much is being self-employed worth? And where else was I going to mix science with people-oriented work? How about the respect and instant social that comes with the job? And I exploited nobody. My staff were paid about 30% over prevailing wages.

And the profit incentive was used successfully in the office to motivate workers. My receptionist was lazy about calling tomorrow's patients to remind them of their appointments, without which the no-show rate is higher. I eventually had my back office nurse do the job, but I transferred 25 cents and hour from the one's pay to the other to reward the industrious one rather than the lazy one. Was she being exploited or was she trying to exploit me and/or the other worker? Eventually, the receptionist began doing all of her job and got her quarter an hour back. That's how capitalism works, too. That's also the power of the profit incentive.

 

[Koldo]

Yes! I was born in, and lived much of my youth in an economically oppressed high crime neighborhood

Just to be clear: You were born in a slum where cops wouldn't dare to drive around unless there was some kind of task force involved because otherwise they would be sitting ducks that would get shot by drug dealers. This is what you mean by 'high crime neighborhood', right? If it is not, I don't think you know what living in a high crime neighborhood means.

Then why do poor people in economically oppressed neighborhoods call the police more than anyone else? Sounds like you've been listening to too many of those "limousine liberals" who fight for the rights of the criminal at the expense of the victim.

First of all, statistics please?
Second, since the government took away the possibility of using force to legally settle all kinds of disputes, what else can they do? Risk fighting against the police if someone else call the cops?

 

[EconGuy]

So we don't loose the flow of what's been said:

Kfox said:
I don’t think any business is morally obligated to pay a living wage according to your chosen lifestyle.

EconGuy said:

I'm curious, because this leads to other unspoken consequences.

For example, if a 3 year old boy is brought to a hospital with a life threatening injury, but the parent/s of that child cannot pay for his care, do you think there is any obligation to help the child or should the parents be turned away?

It is my understanding that all hospitals are legally required to treat you even if you are unable to afford payment. There are many cases where homeless people will claim illnesses on cold days just to get the paramedics to take them to the hospital allowing them a warm room for a few moments while being treated.

Right, but do you think they should be obligated?

 

[EconGuy]

First of all, statistics please?

Don't forget, the poorest places tend to be in areas with the highest populations, so of course there'd be more calls.

 

[Koldo]

You've moved the goalpost. You wrote, "the actual purpose of engaging in commercial trade: to serve the well being of all those involved in the trade." I answered, "that's not why most people go into business." Now you're saying legitimate purpose. I still disagree. Making a living is a legitimate purpose for going into business.

Exploitation is also not the purpose of going into business. It wasn't my purpose.

I listed many of the remedies that government can employ to protect workers. Competing for dollars in an unregulated environment with no social safety net doesn't work except for a very few, but the system works well for most in the hands of progressives.

Capitalism is why I left the Army and went to university, where I studied long hours competing for a medical school seat learned skills that were valuable to society that not everybody could acquire. I was a computer programmer for the Army in the early 70's and was very good at that god enough that I was loaned from my unit in northern Maryland to write code for the Army that my predecessors had been unable to write, and for which plans were being made to subcontract the job out to IBM for about $50,000. No problem. I sat in my little windowless cubicle for a few months and wrote the programs. I had been up all night finishing up. My sergeant, a man of no distinction or talent, came in in the morning, sat down on my work laid out on a table cracking a tape reel (yeah, magnetic tape and punch cards), and read me the riot act for the appearance of my uniform.

I had a safe, secure path to retirement in the military, and if there wasn't a chance for me to make a better life for myself than that, I'd probably have stayed programming 9-5 for the military for little in return working under people I didn't respect and who didn't understand me. But I wanted more, and I was willing to work for it for long hours for decades. That's the power of the profit incentive.

Regarding exploitation, on a playing field that protect workers and allows them to earn a working wage if they work fulltime, people aren't exploited. They are expected to develop useful and saleable skills including the trades and to apply themselves. Absent mental illness, able-bodied people of little intellectual ability can do that. If you make nothing of yourself, you'll end up your back or selling Big Macs, but I don't consider that exploitation.

Incidentally, the reward I sought and the reason I was willing to work so much harder than the military required was not just a good income. How much is being self-employed worth? And where else was I going to mix science with people-oriented work? How about the respect and instant social that comes with the job? And I exploited nobody. My staff were paid about 30% over prevailing wages.

And the profit incentive was used successfully in the office to motivate workers. My receptionist was lazy about calling tomorrow's patients to remind them of their appointments, without which the no-show rate is higher. I eventually had my back office nurse do the job, but I transferred 25 cents and hour from the one's pay to the other to reward the industrious one rather than the lazy one. Was she being exploited or was she trying to exploit me and/or the other worker? Eventually, the receptionist began doing all of her job and got her quarter an hour back. That's how capitalism works, too. That's also the power of the profit incentive.

How do we determine if someone is being exploited? I consider this to be central to this matter.

 

[fantome profane]

Don't forget, the poorest places tend to be in areas with the highest populations, so of course there'd be more calls.

There are some very poor people living in very low population areas as well. I am not sure you are right about this.

But being very poor in a low population area, there might not be any one to call.

 

[CharmingOwl]

I've always considered it as practiced in the United States to be a good thing. But I know a lot of people seem to think it is bad; why?

K

Because it does not benefit my social class. Everyone loves inequality until they are the ones with less.