The One Cause of Poverty That’s Never Considered

[Heyo]

Exactly, be smart enough to take the money from the rich yourself, in a legal way of course.

Why should I care about legality when I don't depend on the government? And why should I depend on the rich giving me money? No, I'd take it.

 

[Lyndon]

The people with the highest IQs usually have trouble holding a job. its called non functional genius

 

[Revoltingest]

He says capitalism works, but then he also says he's "worried about capitalism." Why worry about something that works?

Because so many fools advocate replacing it with socialism.

 

[Revoltingest]

What on earth sort of " tangible results at street level" are you talking about?

Henry Ford worked hard. There's Fords right there are street level.

If Americans rich and poor are unhappy, you tell me why.
Analyze the psyches and geopolitics.
The church people will tell you it's a lack of religion.
The poor will say it's a lack of money.
Others sau libs or cons or who knows what.
Lo here and lo there.

But then, anywhere, any group, some are happy, some are not.
How that relates to the cause of poverty or future of capitalism is
obscure to these dim eyes.

Not that I said or implied " smart" , but, I will say that your type
of if/ then is utterly insincere. " if uou are offended I'm sorry" say.

Why that seemed necessay for you to add at the last is also obscure to me.

In the past, when I had lots'o employees, I'd hired many poor folk.
Things they all had in common:
- Lack of ambition.
- Wasting money on fast food, tattoos, illicit drugs, pets, etc.

This is not to say that all of the poor are that way.
But the left should recognize that many are this way.

BTW, one guy I employed was once poor.
But he got clean, worked hard, & thrived.

 

[Kfox]

The only people in a factory who "generate" anything (a marketable product) are the workers. What does a janitor or a clerk or a CEO "generate"? Why pay them at all?

I never said it was always this way. BTW if a CEO puts the company on a more productive course under his leadership resulting to increased revenue, would you agree his leadership has generated more revenue for the company?

 

[Stevicus]

I just wanted to get back to the OP since since a lot of tangent arguments have happened since.

My objection to this is that there is no guarantee that the government, in the process of increasing taxes on the "rich" is going to actually use this money to rebuild the economy. In the last two years, the government went into debt in it's plan to "rebuild the economy" and we have a worse situation for the poor as a result. The rich same opportunity to help the economy. They can create jobs, give to charities, community programs. Offer scholarships.

Well, there are no guarantees with anything, that's true. I understand the general arguments against big government. Ronald Reagan used many of these same arguments when he was running for President. His idea reflected that of many conservatives who felt that by lowering taxes, it would allow the wealthy to invest their money instead, which would then lead to economic growth, new jobs, and a better standard of living overall. They also trotted out the idea of "comparative advantage," which was what justified all the outsourcing and the push towards the elimination of tariffs.

So, we've been doing all this for about 30-40 years now, and the one thing that seems quite obvious to anyone with eyes and ears is that - it doesn't work.

We've been following the Reagan/Greenspan plan for economic success for quite some time now, but it hasn't really benefited the country as a whole, nor has the "global economy" brought about the kind of peace and stability that many people were expecting it to be at the end of the Cold War.

For the rich, it is beneficial for the economy to boom. They need customers with money to buy their products. So they have the same incentive as the government to use their money as the government to support improvements to the economy.

So the only reason to see increased taxation as a solution is you have a bias for big government. There is no real logical reason, from past history, to have this bias. And hey, I have a bias against big government. So more inclined to see keeping money in the hands of those that earn it as the better solution.

Most great changes in history have come about through some sort of state-level power driving it to happen. It doesn't necessarily mean "big government," but there is a certain logic for private entities and individuals within a society to support a government for their shared, collective interests. Usually security interests, although governments and courts were in a logical position to mediate contractual disputes. So, your statement that "there is no real logical reason" does not jibe with historical fact.

There are historical reasons which would explain why the general functions of government expanded and how it got so big. I realize that there's been a reaction against "Big Gov" for the past 40+ years, but my criticism of that is that they never fully appreciated the historical background and the reasons why government got so big. It's not that I have a bias for big government, as there's quite a bit about government I don't like either.

Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and the enormous changes it has brought upon the world, it seems that government's primary role has defaulted to something more of a referee, but also with the apparent goal of maintaining a sense of order and political harmony, where the hoi polloi are largely "content." If such conditions can be maintained, that can definitely be a net benefit for the wealthy and powerful in this country.

So the solution being offered is not really a solution, it's a bias. I think if giving money to the government was a solution they would have made some progress by now.
My solution would be to change the mentality of the poor because there is no guarantee either bias for big government or bias for the wealthy is going to solve the problem of poverty. Give the poor the tools they need to be self-reliant. Not looking for support from either the government or the rich. Really, my my experience they are as likely not to get it as get it from either source.

Don't depend on the government, don't depend on the rich. Depend on yourself.

I would say that, overall, there has been a great deal of progress when looking over the grand scale of the past few centuries. Government became more dominant as the modern creation of the nation-state became more dominant on the world stage, changed by industrialism, the need for resources, and a growing number of restless people more densely populated into cities.

I agree with your basic premise here, at least about not depending on government or the rich. I believe that it's best to depend on oneself. I've worked for everything I have, and I've never taken a dime in unemployment or welfare or any public assistance whatsoever. I pay my own way.

But this has nothing to do with me or any one individual. This has to do with the country as a whole.

I agree that it might be helpful to change the mentality of the poor, although one could say the same thing about changing the mentality of the voters. That's one thing that democracy and the free market have in common. It would work a lot better if the people were smarter.

 

[Stevicus]

You might want to put the "fat and lazy and don't want to work" argument to rest, unless someone is actually arguing that position.

Actually, that argument was raised upthread, if you follow the exchange you're quoting from.

And what about the fruits of government? Don't they also have some accountability for the homeless problem?
The current state of affairs negates the solution offered in the OP. We need something new IMO.

Of course the government is accountable for the homeless problem. Who said they weren't?

 

[Lyndon]

I never said it was always this way. BTW if a CEO puts the company on a more productive course under his leadership resulting to increased revenue, would you agree his leadership has generated more revenue for the company?

Not if he doesn't pay his workers more generously, otherwise he is just leaching off their effort

 

[Lyndon]

Well, there are no guarantees with anything, that's true. I understand the general arguments against big government. Ronald Reagan used many of these same arguments when he was running for President. His idea reflected that of many conservatives who felt that by lowering taxes, it would allow the wealthy to invest their money instead, which would then lead to economic growth, new jobs, and a better standard of living overall. They also trotted out the idea of "comparative advantage," which was what justified all the outsourcing and the push towards the elimination of tariffs.

So, we've been doing all this for about 30-40 years now, and the one thing that seems quite obvious to anyone with eyes and ears is that - it doesn't work.

We've been following the Reagan/Greenspan plan for economic success for quite some time now, but it hasn't really benefited the country as a whole, nor has the "global economy" brought about the kind of peace and stability that many people were expecting it to be at the end of the Cold War.




Most great changes in history have come about through some sort of state-level power driving it to happen. It doesn't necessarily mean "big government," but there is a certain logic for private entities and individuals within a society to support a government for their shared, collective interests. Usually security interests, although governments and courts were in a logical position to mediate contractual disputes. So, your statement that "there is no real logical reason" does not jibe with historical fact.

There are historical reasons which would explain why the general functions of government expanded and how it got so big. I realize that there's been a reaction against "Big Gov" for the past 40+ years, but my criticism of that is that they never fully appreciated the historical background and the reasons why government got so big. It's not that I have a bias for big government, as there's quite a bit about government I don't like either.

Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and the enormous changes it has brought upon the world, it seems that government's primary role has defaulted to something more of a referee, but also with the apparent goal of maintaining a sense of order and political harmony, where the hoi polloi are largely "content." If such conditions can be maintained, that can definitely be a net benefit for the wealthy and powerful in this country.



I would say that, overall, there has been a great deal of progress when looking over the grand scale of the past few centuries. Government became more dominant as the modern creation of the nation-state became more dominant on the world stage, changed by industrialism, the need for resources, and a growing number of restless people more densely populated into cities.

I agree with your basic premise here, at least about not depending on government or the rich. I believe that it's best to depend on oneself. I've worked for everything I have, and I've never taken a dime in unemployment or welfare or any public assistance whatsoever. I pay my own way.

But this has nothing to do with me or any one individual. This has to do with the country as a whole.

I agree that it might be helpful to change the mentality of the poor, although one could say the same thing about changing the mentality of the voters. That's one thing that democracy and the free market have in common. It would work a lot better if the people were smarter.

What is needed is to change the attitudes of the rich, not the poor, to pay their workers a decent living wage

 

[Stevicus]

Because so many fools advocate replacing it with socialism.

And why would they want to do that, if capitalism works so well? In fact, when more people have a stake in the system operating smoothly, it tends to go rather well. There's a general feeling of "we're all in this together" which leads to political harmony and stability. It's when those conditions aren't present that discontent and discord are generated. That's when the upper classes become worried.

 

[Nakosis]

Actually, that argument was raised upthread, if you follow the exchange you're quoting from.



Of course the government is accountable for the homeless problem. Who said they weren't?

OK, great you have an argument against this one individual. I'd certainly support you argument against them. Or any one on RF that happens to bring it up.

So if the government is accountable and not doing the job, it means the solution offered in the OP is not a viable solution.

 

[Heyo]

What is needed is to change the attitudes of the rich, not the poor, to pay their workers a decent living wage

... and their fair share of taxes.

 

[Nakosis]

Why should I care about legality when I don't depend on the government? And why should I depend on the rich giving me money? No, I'd take it.

So without the government around to keep you in line you'd act in an immoral manner towards your fellow man.
Good to know.

An additional cost on the government that takes money away from helping the homeless.

 

[Nakosis]

What is needed is to change the attitudes of the rich, not the poor, to pay their workers a decent living wage

Why should they if the poor is willing to accept the lower pay?
If not you then some other person will.

 

[Lyndon]

Why should they if the poor is willing to accept the lower pay?
If not you then some other person will.

Your utter contempt for the poor workers is noted, disgusting

 

[Nakosis]

Your utter contempt for the poor workers is noted, disgusting

You don't know me, so probably better that you stop thinking you do.

 

[Lyndon]

You don't know me, so probably better that you stop thinking you do.

unless your comments are not reflective of your opinion, I think we know you pretty well!!

 

[Nakosis]

unless your comments are not reflective of your opinion, I think we know you pretty well!!

Ok, we?
You and that mouse in your pocket?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why should they if the poor is willing to accept the lower pay?
If not you then some other person will.

Well, it is a bit more complex than that, because of how unions are treated can have an influence on that.

 

[Audie]

Not if he doesn't pay his workers more generously, otherwise he is just leaching off their effort

How much is "more generously"?

And did you ever pay anyone for their work?