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.
For you guys talking about government benefits, using library computers, public transportation and roommates....
Take time to read the article and understand the premise.
The article is telling you what it takes for a single individual to be SELF SUFFICIENT. INDEPENDENT.
Yes, we get that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK78
Not dependent on a roommate coming up with their half of the rent or water bill or making noise late at night or arguing what to watch on T.V.
You are not entitled to shelter. There is no such thing as a Human Right to Shelter.
To the extent that shelter might possibly be some right, you are not entitled and have no right to a particular standard of shelter.
If the only thing you can afford is a bunk in a Quonset Hut with 41 other people, then man-up and do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK78
Not dependent on the hours of public transportation and stuck if you need to get somewhere but the last bus for the day left the proverbial station. Or if you need to go see a parent or meet a friend but the public transit does not go there or you need to get to the hospital and have to find a ride.
You are not entitled to a car.
Your friends and parents can come see you.
Your friends and parents can meet you at a convenient location for both of you with respect to transportation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK78
Not dependent on the hours of the library and how many computers they have to use when you're waiting for an important e-mail or need to apply to a job during off hours or no computers available to use because they're already occupied.
You cannot be independent if you are dependent upon technology.
You have no right, entitlement or claim to technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK78
Not dependent on the government to pay for your food, medical care or part of your housing with taxpayer dollars.
Etc...
Government services are voluntary, not obligatory.
The Constitution does not say "....shall provide for the general Welfare..."
If you don't understand the difference between "shall" and "may" or the absence of both, then you need to learn.
[quote=CK78;37505445]The article is explaining to you what it takes for a healthy, grown adult to be SELF SUFFICIENT and live an INDEPENDENT lifestyle with no help or need to be taken care of or depend on others.
You're falsely assuming that you have a right or are entitled to that, and you're not.
See if you can present an argument that isn't subjectively based on false assumptions and without fallacies.
That's my point...
But that is only at the margins. More broadly? Nope.
Most of what increasing "job skills" will do is to diminish wage values at the next level up.
Those who did pay attention and already have those skills don't need the competition
for the still limited number of work hours available for those skills.
We need to find something else for these millions.
In your two posts I've read in this thread you've hit the crux of the matter closer than I have.
And what you've said above is also 100% correct. While if only a handful increased their "skills"at "the margins" that would indeed help them. But if large swaths of people take this advice then you're merely creating the problem the bottom level wage earners have towards the top and their wages would go down or stagnate which is actually happening right now with every years graduating classes from the nations colleges.
Only the true elite and owners are immune to this stuff.
You're trying to split hairs and I'm not playing this game with you. I'm talking about direct dependence on one other human being for paying part of your expenses. (a place to live and possible other bills)
No. When you have roommates, you are paying for part of the usage of the dwelling, not the whole thing. The usage of the dwelling (a service) is simply being split into parts, and you are paying for your part. No one is helping you pay for your share of the bills. Sure they are helping you pay the total costs of the dwelling , but so what? You only use part of it!
In the same way, when other people shop at the same store as you, you are paying for part of the rent on the retail space as well as other operating costs, as those costs are built into the purchase price of what you buy. You are paying for part of the retail capacity of the store, not the whole thing. The usage of the space (commercial space) is simply being split into parts, and you are paying for your part - in the form of added retail price. No one is helping you pay for your food. Sure they are helping you pay for the total cost of leasing the retail space, but so what? You only use part of it!
Please give a non-special pleading explanation for why the cases should be treated differently from each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK78
And you're talking about macro-economic ecosystems and the macro-dependence of human beings on each other. Even the multi-millionaire drives on taxpayer paid roads etc...
I am not referring to public utilities in this discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK78
Not what I'm talking about and I think you know it. You want to waist time and play semantic games. I'm talking about direct dependence on another person to help you pay your expenses.
This is not a semantic game, it is an analogy. The point of an analogy is to show that one thing is relevantly similar to another and to then transfer the reasoning used on one thing to another.
You are using the term "direct" dependence - which you have not defined. How do you determine whether a dependence is "direct" or "indirect"?
It is unclear how roommates are any more "directly" dependent on each other than customers at a large retail store, especially with separate leases - where each tenant is obliged by contract to pay a set amount each month for their room and a set share of the utility bills for the whole dwelling.
If your contract only requires you to come up with the rent/utilities for your share of the housing, and you pay what is required under that contract with no roommate help, is that really any different from buying food at the same store as other customers?
You need to consider the possibility that you have surplus labor....
Possibility that? I'd say we're well past that question.
The only open question I see is settling the number: is it 20 or 50 or 100 Million?
Quote:
with no place for it to go ...
No place the the unimaginative and welfare apologists want to consider.
And no... that's not the dystopian and malthusian redherrings they'll throw out.
Quote:
--- except to export it overseas.
You really see only one avenue?
Tsk. You're usually better than that.
Quote:
This is nearly identical to the Great Depression...
Not so much. The principle difference being the volume of no/low skilled labor then.
No matter where that surplus might go today they'll be idle.
And regardless of what or where the continuing problem that really must be considered
first are the measures needed to prevent them regenerating another wave of surplus humanity
that our grandchildren will have to deal with.
We can't afford to be as irresponsible as our own parents were in allowing and even promoting
this population to grow at the same time they were dismantling and offshoring the no/low skill
jobs that their parents once had.
.
Last edited by MrRational; 12-04-2014 at 01:14 PM..
In your opinion is it a reasonable expectation that we pay everyone what it would cost to be completely self-sufficient?
Obviously the answer is it is not reasonable or possible to do. I think we can agree that's more than obvious. It's also obviously not reasonable, practical, or possible to make sure that everyone can get or has a job that wants or needs one. Obviously neither of those things is possible, reasonable or practical.
I acknowledge that.
That being said and being the case. I don't want to hear hypocrites on here arguing the above on all these forums on C.D. while out of the other side of their mouths b****ing and moaning about welfare, taxes, Medicaid, section 8, Obama Care, food stamps etc... on and on. And that "those people" should get more than one non-existent jobs for not enough pay to get you off the hook for their expenses.
Because if you think the government is ever going to let people just meander around the streets until they die then I can tell you that's never going to happen. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you acknowledge and argue that huge swaths of people are not entitled to enough pay to pay their way and that people are not entitled to jobs than don't whine like babies about them "not paying taxes" and you subsidizing them.
You can't have it both ways and the government is not going to let them die in the streets. So either way people will have plenty to complain about.
I don't complain about social welfare programs. I believe all people should have their basic necessities met, even if they can't pay for them. No one should go hungry, be without shelter, or basic medical care.
Although I am generally in favor of smaller government, I do recognize that some things are best overseen by government rather than the private sector. In my opinion, social service programs are one of those things.
However, I do not at all believe that everyone is entitled to a middle class lifestyle, whether or not they can pay for it. And more importantly, it is not possible to provide every person with that lifestyle.
I don't complain about social welfare programs.
I believe all people should have their basic necessities met, even if they can't pay for them.
No one should go hungry, be without shelter, or basic medical care.
Well said. The question becomes one of HOW society will meet those human needs.
And what society will (or can?) demand in return for doing so.
You've just touched on the genius of the system from the elites, privileged and or owners perspective without maybe realizing it.
So we hear so much on C.D. that if you pay the workers more than prices will rise and we'll have to pay more which will lead to inflation. Can't have that. Or the owners will fire everyone leading to more unemployed and more taxes, subsidies.
On the other side it's why do we have to pay for these people? They should pay their own way etc... And complain about welfare, food stamps, section 8, Medicaid....
Don't you see it? The privileged, elite and owners have it set up where no matter which way you decide to go they win. Might have something to do with the income disparity we see.
They get to pay people poverty level wages. Then the middle class subsidizes the other portion of their living expenses.
Make them pay enough to cover all their expenses to live on. Then they'll raise their prices so that the middle classes still cover their cost through price increases.
But either way the house slaves are paying for the field slaves and there is no way around it. The winners win either way. That's the way it's always been and probably always will be. That's why it pays to have lots of assets, lots of powerful friends, and lots of money in this world.
And to not have them most certainly does not pay.
Your argument would make a lot of sense if the middle class were paying the bulk of income taxes. But, we aren't. The top 10% pay more than half; the top 25% pay about 7/8.
It is the "elite" who are paying all those taxes which support the social programs.
You are not entitled to shelter. There is no such thing as a Human Right to Shelter.
To the extent that shelter might possibly be some right, you are not entitled and have no right to a particular standard of shelter.
If the only thing you can afford is a bunk in a Quonset Hut with 41 other people, then man-up and do it.
You are not entitled to a car.
Your friends and parents can come see you.
Your friends and parents can meet you at a convenient location for both of you with respect to transportation.
You cannot be independent if you are dependent upon technology.
You have no right, entitlement or claim to technology.
Government services are voluntary, not obligatory.
The Constitution does not say "....shall provide for the general Welfare..."
If you don't understand the difference between "shall" and "may" or the absence of both, then you need to learn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK78
The article is explaining to you what it takes for a healthy, grown adult to be SELF SUFFICIENT and live an INDEPENDENT lifestyle with no help or need to be taken care of or depend on others.
You're falsely assuming that you have a right or are entitled to that, and you're not.
See if you can present an argument that isn't subjectively based on false assumptions and without fallacies.
That's my point...
Mircea
I'm not responding to both posts point by point.
But the one questions you asked about $36,000 not being a lot of money and that I have to prove it or something I can tell you that in the large population centers it certainly is a very meager salary and will not provide you with anything extravagant it's working class or working poor at best.
And while all throughout the C.D. forums you explain the brute truths of economies and economics very well and are probably correct about most of what you say and I'll concede that. Although if you disagree and think your 100% correct that's just arrogant and wrong since economics is by no means a science like the others.
The only thing I'd like to say in response to all your replies everywhere is that populations of disenfranchised people don't show up to the arena or tune in to the T.V. to hear Ph.D's explain to them why they deserve to live in poverty and work for slave wages. They burn stuff and kill people.
I'm sure the victim's of the Russian and French Revolutions would have loved to have someone like you stand in front of the angry mobs and explained to them how this is how it works and that they're not entitled to anything so go back to your farms and make do. I'm sure it would have done a lot of good. About the same amount of good it'll do when the next shoe drops on this economy and '08 looks like a picnic.
Disenfranchised people are not interested in reading economic textbooks.
Your argument would make a lot of sense if the middle class were paying the bulk of income taxes. But, we aren't. The top 10% pay more than half; the top 25% pay about 7/8.
It is the "elite" who are paying all those taxes which support the social programs.
The top 10% pay more than half; the top 25% pay about 7/8.
It is the "elite" who are paying all those taxes which support the social programs.
Which is awful ...and just the way they like it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK78
They ARE the middle class now.
Don't mistake the mathematical with the underlying principles.
Middle Class is about being able to afford to pay your own way in life... including taxes and NOT just what raw number is the top line on your 1040.
This distinction is not just the semantics.
Quote:
The lowest 80% of the population is now working class and poor.
THAT is what's left of our middle class.
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.
