Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just a question. Exactly which people are the have nots? Is it the not rich? The middle class and struggling? Or just the very poor? Aren't we all without something? What do you have to be without to be a have not?
In my opinion, I don't think America has very many have nots if any. This could change.
Newenglandgirl- " You asked the first question with assumptions and presumptions"
Can you break down your statement for me. What are the assumptions and presumptions you speak of in post#1? Oh yea I am asking Newenglandgirl.
If you do respond to me, can you please give us your opinion of who the have nots are? I really would like to hear your opinion,really i would. If you already did in a earlier post, sorry I missed it but could you condense it in a sentence or two. Please do not take it as an attack, I really would like to hear your opinion. Heck the op and you may agree.
Newenglandgirl- " You asked the first question with assumptions and presumptions"
Can you break down your statement for me. What are the assumptions and presumptions you speak of in post#1? Oh yea I am asking Newenglandgirl.
If you do respond to me, can you please give us your opinion of who the have nots are? I really would like to hear your opinion,really i would. If you already did in a earlier post, sorry I missed it but could you condense it in a sentence or two. Please do not take it as an attack, I really would like to hear your opinion. Heck the op and you may agree.
I have not offered my opinion on who the Have Nots are, because although I believe that anyone is free to start a thread and pose any question s/he wants, there are some questions that aren't worth asking. That is not a blanket statement, it is my subjective opinion, so I have not opined on her original question.
To ask "Who are the Haves and Have Nots" opens everyone up to the subjective experience. It's like asking "Who are the attractive or handsome people and who are the ugly ones." It's a completely subjective perspective.
So that's what happened, the subjective responses came in and some of them were portraying the Have Nots as lazy, welfare families, running around getting their nails done and buying ipods, people with no incentive or smarts (the OP stated that if you have smarts and common sense you will not be a Have Not), etc.
Every time someone made a blanket statement that bordered on stereotyping (or was, outright), my response was to point that out. Not to feel big or important or "right" as the OP wants to believe, but to attempt to fairly represent many of the Have Nots.
In the OP's examples of the "exempt" (exempt from being lazy in the "Have Not" category), even there s/he was stereotyping. people s/he defined as Have Nots who, under a good definition of what it means to be one, would not be one.
It is so easy to glump people together: the successful ones were smart, had common sense, did it always all by themselves, etcera. And the others? Just a bunch of morons who will never get anywhere and expect you and me to subsidize them. My comments have been addressed that, to try to get beyond the subjective.
So I do not believe there is any helpful answer to the OP's question unless s/he is willing to spell out the criteria of these categories and then we can respond, hopefully without all the judgmental "why's" (unless s/he starts a new thread like "Who are the Have Nots and Why," and then a real discussion opens up perhaps with even more subjective opinions. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the unfounded things (things not backed by any studies or quoted professional input) she says, but imho s/he does not appear interested in a wide range of differing opinion. Some of her statements, even bragging about her first million, reveal that she has preconceived notions about the Haves and Have Nots. Unfortunately. If s/he is confident in her personal viewpoint and doesn't want to be challenge, why pose the question? (That was my reference to a club instead of a forum)
Last edited by RiverBird; 09-25-2010 at 02:53 PM..
I never said I was successful. In fact, most people assume I am married to a man who makes a lot of money. Must be because I chose to stop working, we go on "vacations" to Europe and we are almost done with our mortgage. What people don't realize is that in order to have these things, we had to give up on other things. I try not to live off the fat of the land. I do not buy plastic toys for my daughter. All of her clothes were handed down or bought on Craigslist. I will stop right there before being accused of gloating about all of my "smart" choices. I have already said I am not particularly smart.
Everyone on this board and living right now have benefited off the fat of the land because of cheap oil. The population is what it is today because of cheap oil. I am not particularly smart. Drop me off in the back country and I will die. Forget about giving birth and seeing my daughter grow into an adult.
You told me that the purpose of capitalism is profits. There is result to capitalism. It provides goods and services to people who otherwise would not have had such goods or services through competition. Lower class people can dress stylishly but go back 600 years ago and I am sure the lower class was wear homemade clothing.
Most goods I do not need especially if you can find them outside of the produce section. Most services I do not need (highlighting my hair, getting my nails done, keeping up with the news, going to the movies).
The sad part about your statement is that you think that is not enough. What would you add to that list?
I believe that jtr88 wants everybody to start on even ground. Take the money away from everybody and you will see that all the children do not start on even ground just from the families they have chosen.
Too bad I was assumed to be a capitalist when I was simply explaining how the system works. There is nothing wrong with knowing about things. You know, just in case somebody wants to advertise his own ways.
What I have learned over the past decade was probably something I should have learned as a child. It is very simple and a wonderful poster who I butted heads with said it simply: I am happiest when I live my life according to my expectations. My interpretation: I don't need all the things that people say I do. Bottom line: Health is most important.
I have to disagree with you on one thing. You have lived smart and I think you are smart.
I never said I was successful. In fact, most people assume I am married to a man who makes a lot of money. Must be because I chose to stop working, we go on "vacations" to Europe and we are almost done with our mortgage. What people don't realize is that in order to have these things, we had to give up on other things. I try not to live off the fat of the land. I do not buy plastic toys for my daughter. All of her clothes were handed down or bought on Craigslist. I will stop right there before being accused of gloating about all of my "smart" choices. I have already said I am not particularly smart.
Everyone on this board and living right now have benefited off the fat of the land because of cheap oil. The population is what it is today because of cheap oil. I am not particularly smart. Drop me off in the back country and I will die. Forget about giving birth and seeing my daughter grow into an adult.
You told me that the purpose of capitalism is profits. There is result to capitalism. It provides goods and services to people who otherwise would not have had such goods or services through competition. Lower class people can dress stylishly but go back 600 years ago and I am sure the lower class was wear homemade clothing.
Most goods I do not need especially if you can find them outside of the produce section. Most services I do not need (highlighting my hair, getting my nails done, keeping up with the news, going to the movies).
The sad part about your statement is that you think that is not enough. What would you add to that list?
I believe that jtr88 wants everybody to start on even ground. Take the money away from everybody and you will see that all the children do not start on even ground just from the families they have chosen.
Too bad I was assumed to be a capitalist when I was simply explaining how the system works. There is nothing wrong with knowing about things. You know, just in case somebody wants to advertise his own ways.
What I have learned over the past decade was probably something I should have learned as a child. It is very simple and a wonderful poster who I butted heads with said it simply: I am happiest when I live my life according to my expectations. My interpretation: I don't need all the things that people say I do. Bottom line: Health is most important.
There is a lot of wisdom here, and I agree with almost everything you say (esp about our country being "made" on oil --but I would add, "unfortunately").
The one thing that seems off to me--you assume that I am against capitalism. Not in the least. I am proud to be an American and have prospered under capitalism.
I am passionately in favor of retaining the middle class, because without it those at the top will have a dearth of middle-class-provided services and those in the middle will sink to the bottom, adding to those large numbers.
While a two-class (rich and poor) system can be seen to be a good thing in countries run by dictatorships (the rich rule), in our country it may create a social nightmare as the masses at the bottom can go out of control, and the middle class taxes go missing. Not too good for the upper classes.
Our country was the most stable perhaps when the rich were rich and the poor were poor (and got help) and the middle class was strong and thriving. Yes it was hierarchical but at least there was stability. Without the working middle class in a country as huge as America, you can only wonder how long our stability can last. (Even the Haves may have a way moving into the Have Less and Have Nots)
Just a question. Exactly which people are the have nots? Is it the not rich? The middle class and struggling? Or just the very poor? Aren't we all without something? What do you have to be without to be a have not?
In my opinion, I don't think America has very many have nots if any. This could change.
Here are some facts about the 35 million people in america defined as living below the poverty line.
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
Fortysix percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a threebedroom house with oneandahalf baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventysix percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than twothirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly threequarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninetyseven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventyeight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventythree percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished.
I think the real problem with the have nots, is that they have enough things to survive, but when they talk to friends or sees other people they appear to have more then they do.
This causes someone to feel poor, that is really the problem. We have a materialistic culture and it causes some to feel left out of the game.
Here are some facts about the 35 million people in america defined as living below the poverty line.
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
Fortysix percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a threebedroom house with oneandahalf baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventysix percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than twothirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly threequarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninetyseven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventyeight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventythree percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished.
"Poor" is qualified on the basis of income, not assets (unless it's dividends from assets).
Living above or below the "poverty line" is above or below a defined $ amount of earned income or income from all sources.
Someone in the "poor" category could be there because they suffered the loss of a job but they already had a home from better times, along with the a.c. and car, etc.
They may even have great savings but are earning a low enough return so that their gross income from all sources is still below poverty level.
There are many people who are "house rich" and "cash poor" or "house/asset rich" and "income poor." Many people who have very low income ("poor") enjoy a good life because of assets they have created. Or, often you see people at survival centers who don't look like they need help b/c they have a home and a car....but very little income to buy bread.
That's kind of why it's hard to generalize about people and whether they're haves or have nots.
Last edited by RiverBird; 09-26-2010 at 07:46 PM..
Thanks nocontengencies and newenglandgirl. When I say that I am not smart, I am referring to what I believe most American's consider smart. They usually think "genius" or a person who understands a concept the first time they read it. The attitude is "you either have it or you don't" so don't bother trying.
I was fed this lie as a child and as a young adult and many other poor children are being taught this lie. One day I realized that I was living my life according to somebody else's expectations and that somebody was no more smarter than I was. Some were dumber in fact. And still some were not even people I knew personally, just people I might run into.
I used to look at things separately - kind of like learning all the subjects in isolation. I wish I can articulate how the many topics on C-D are interconnected.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
