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.
Every system, by definition, has outliers. There will always be people who will not fit the mold, and whose presence within the system is problematic. Eery jury trial runs the risk of a juror who will hang the jury, or nullify it. Every police force will have a bad cop. Every movie audience will have someone who snaps gum. But we live with our juries, our cops, our cinemas.
What needs to be recognized is the law of diminishing returns. Out of a population of 300-million, the cost of zero-tolerance is extremely high. We can't afford a level of vigilance that will guarantee that every single kid will not be a bully, or every single driver is sober. or every single airliner will not hit a goose. We take moderate steps to reduce risk, but the cost line rises very steeply when it nears zero risk.
We have to live with the risks, because reducing risk to absolute zero extracts an unacceptable cost of policing, and an unacceptable cost in civil rights for the rest of us. Which is most tolerable---to have a dozen malingerers getting benefits who don't deserve them, or hire an army of inspectors to invade everyone's privacy to detect the offenders, or abolishing the whole system and denying benefits to a thousand people who do need them?
So it is realistic to be an idealist, as long as one recognizes that an ideal with a few glitches is better than no ideal at all.
The war on terror ought to be an example. In our worst year, 2001, terrorists killed fewer Americans than drunk drivers did, or Americans with handguns. But we pretended there was only one terrorist, dedicated out entire lives to finding him at the cost of freedom and trust among ourselves, failed, turned our attention to looking for terroriss where there were none, and wound up spending a trillion to try to reduce the number of terrorists in the world from a manageable number to zero, and didn't even make a dent. We could have tolerated the certainty that there will always be terrorists, gotten on with our business, lived with the risk as a cost of doing business, saved thousands of soldiers lives, maybe a million Iraqi lives, and trillions of dollars, against the risk of another terrorist attack, which I guarantee you will happen again anyway no matter what we spend to stop it.
Zero tolerance comes at a cost we cannot afford. Better to get back to the business of making a more perfect union, promoting the general welfare, and accept that it will never be absolutely perfect.
I'm glad you are so special and never make mistakes. But if someone gives you the wrong directions and you don't get to where you are supposed to to go is it your fault or the guy who gave you the directions? It's the same thing with all the influences of the world turned to getting people to spend like mad.
Unfortunately young people are often gullible and easily taken advantage of. They hold some responsiblity of course and certainly pay the price for poor decisions, but the greater sin is on the people hoodwinking them on purpose to profit from it. Being at least a little empathetic is MY responsiblity as a human being.
I never said I don't make mistakes, I have made tons of them and they were a great learning experience. I accept responsibility for all of them.
It's not like people don't know you should save money, it's an idea that's been in common circulation for over 80 years. Even if you are not forced to learn it in school, or by your parents, it's still something you must learn. You can hit the library, or even websites, to educate yourself about the basics finance pretty easily as well.
The problem is that people only listen to what they want to hear, it's something I found out through personal experience. People have asked me many times for financial advise (MBA and work in finance, it's what I do). However, if I didn't tell them what they wanted to hear they would either disregard me or even scream at me in a few instances. People want to spend and acquire stuff and not save for a rainy day, and find any reinforcement to do that.
I never said I don't make mistakes, I have made tons of them and they were a great learning experience. I accept responsibility for all of them.
It's not like people don't know you should save money, it's an idea that's been in common circulation for over 80 years. Even if you are not forced to learn it in school, or by your parents, it's still something you must learn. You can hit the library, or even websites, to educate yourself about the basics finance pretty easily as well.
The problem is that people only listen to what they want to hear, it's something I found out through personal experience. People have asked me many times for financial advise (MBA and work in finance, it's what I do). However, if I didn't tell them what they wanted to hear they would either disregard me or even scream at me in a few instances. People want to spend and acquire stuff and not save for a rainy day, and find any reinforcement to do that.
Fair enough.
I guess my point is that rather than just condemning people for making stupid decisions it is better to understand the underlying reasons why that decision was made in order to better understand and fix the problem.
Bottom line, people need to stop living beyond their means and they need to stop believing everything the TV tells them.
See if you can guess why single moms with retail counter jobs and unreliable old cars to drive their kids to day care don't open savings accounts. Of course. She's nuts. And ridiculous. And selfish. And unenlightened.
.
Since I neither got this lady pregnant nor told her to forego a better career, I'm not sure how I am responsible for her life/lifestyle. And good job, btw, picking the most extreme example and using that as a gross generalization.
Like we don't know that many dual income families with homes and nice cars choose to live on the edge of their credit and then cry when it all falls apart.
Hey, I am all for helping people. But people have to want to help themselves first.
Liberalism: the haunting feeling that someone somewhere out there is capable of doing something for themselves
People have asked me many times for financial advise (MBA and work in finance, it's what I do). However, if I didn't tell them what they wanted to hear they would either disregard me or even scream at me in a few instances. People want to spend and acquire stuff and not save for a rainy day, and find any reinforcement to do that.
My wife has the exact same job and says people act exactly that way. Scrimp and save?! NO F'in WAY! Show me how to have whatever I want whenever I want! That's why I hired a magical advisor!
Since I neither got this lady pregnant nor told her to forego a better career, I'm not sure how I am responsible for her life/lifestyle.
You and I pay the same premiums for car insurance, but you drive a lot more miles than I do, placing you at greater exposure. I'm not sure how I am responsible for your lifestyle. But I subsidize your protection anyway, because that's how America becomes a better place for all of us to live. We share the responsibility for each other, in spite of our different lifestyles.
The lady above might have been once married, in good faith, to a man who, through abject seflishness, had nary a care about anybody but himself, but had lied about his glittering generosity, and only wanted children that he could brainwash with his warped political philosophy. He blamed everything that went wrong on somebody else. S*** happens.
People don't pay the same premiums for insurance (neither health nor auto).
I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing. How can you argue against the prudent idea of creating and maintaining whatever savings account you can? As opposed to the op's ridiculous suggestion?
People don't pay the same premiums for insurance (neither health nor auto).
I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing. How can you argue against the prudent idea of creating and maintaining whatever savings account you can? As opposed to the op's ridiculous suggestion?
If I lived in the same zip code, buying insurance from the same company, I would pay the same premium for mandatory liability, disallowing for past driving record. In fact I would pay more than you, because I don't have a stable full of thoroughbred cars to give me a multi-car discount. And I wouldn't get the multi-policy discount for also insuring my home in the country club suburbs. But of course I could never afford to live in your zip code. The poor always subsidize the rich.
I am arguing against the imprudent assumption that a low-wage worker has plenty of money left every payday to build up a savings account capable of withstanding a catastrophic event. Especially if raising children, and paying huge legal fees to an attorney to defend her custody of her children after being dumped by a lout who is primarily motivated by selfishness and disregard for the plight of anybody else, as indicated by his political philosophy.
If I lived in the same zip code, buying insurance from the same company, I would pay the same premium for mandatory liability,
You may be right. However, insurance companies have been, and are, charging premiums in part based on your credit scores. So, living in the same zip code, with the same type of car, but with different credit scores - you may have different premiums
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.
