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.
My take is outside the norm - even on the left, but it's basically this: We are who we are, and we have little choice in the matter, so punishing people for that is cruel.
When you look at any number of personality traits, around half of who we are is due to genetics. This includes a lot of the aspects of what makes us become a successful, or unsuccessful individual, such as intelligence, enjoyment of hard work, or propensity (or rather lack thereof) to addition. Very little of the remainder seems to be up to our personal choice - most of it comes down to accidents of birth, and where we grow up.
As a culture, we agree that those with disabilities should be treated differently in some manner. We don't tell people in wheelchairs to suck it up and pull themselves up stairs by their arms for example. We understand they have natural disadvantages due to no fault of their own, and no amount of bootstrap-lifting will deal with it. Similarly, there are just some people who are fundamentally unemployable, due to some combination of low intelligence, impulsiveness, mental illness, and addiction. We should strive to make sure their lives are as full and rich as possible, but everyone should not have identical expectations put upon them.
Flipping things around here, if you look at history (or even the bible) there are many stories of beggars. They existed despite the lack of any welfare state to "coddle" them. And their lives were considerably worse in almost every respect than the average desperately poor, or even homeless person today. The "tough love" of the streets did not result in them pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and becoming gainfully employed. It just resulted in more suffering.
People do often say things like "I made it, so should they." But this again denies the differences between human experiences. To use an a analogy, studies have shown that most people who keep in excellent physical shape are not that way due to "dicipline." They are that way because they do not particularly enjoy eating, and they get a real rush out of exercise. They are doing what makes them happy, which in their case (quite happily) results in a a fit body. You can take an obese person and put them on a similar diet/exercise regimen, and see the same physical results. But they often backslide because...they don't actually enjoy any of it. It's something they endure for the results, often making themselves much unhappier in the process. And even though it can work in individual cases, it's not really a solution for the "problem of obesity" because it fails for the vast majority of people. Similarly, if you scraped your way out of poverty, it may just be that you were doing what made you happy - which happened to involve lots of hard work and planning.
Ultimately, the goal of any society should be to try and move us towards human flourishing - making the world incrementally better for its citizens, and minimizing suffering. Looking at the arc of history, there's really no evidence that "tough love" results in better long-term outcomes for everyone, or even the majority, which means it's just making people suffer needlessly for no reason whatsoever.
Except there’s obviously many that are capable of pulling up their bootstraps, getting a better job that they’re qualified for, capable of working harder to better themselves, etc... Expecting others to pay because one doesn’t choose to take that path is entitlement at it’s finest, and it’s taking away from those that can’t take care of themselves and/or make their situations better. If you want it, earn it.
Self inflicted problems and wants because others have more, isn’t other people’s responsibility. As the saying goes, “poor planning on your part doesn’t constitute an emergency on mine”.
Except there’s obviously many that are capable of pulling up their bootstraps, getting a better job that they’re qualified for, capable of working harder to better themselves, etc... Expecting others to pay because one doesn’t choose to take that path is entitlement at it’s finest, and it’s taking away from those that can’t take care of themselves and/or make their situations better.
First, entitlement is not a bad word. Social Security is an entitlement. So is Medicare. It just means something we're entitled to under law.
Second, just saying "everyone can work harder" is no solution. Even if it were true, if person X works harder, they push person Y out of a job. There will always be winners, and there will always be losers. And frankly, the more we attempt to make things "fair" by eliminating advantages bestowed for unfair reasons (like mommy and daddy giving you a leg up) the more those who end up on the bottom are the ones who clearly never had a shot at being a contender.
None of us make it to where we are without government support though. Government is at the root of everything. Even if you're a fan of the "night watchmen state" that libertarians prefer, without government none of this is possible. A government provides a stable civil society with an armed force and police. A government provides a system of property laws (including intellectual property/patents) which ensure that someone can't just steal what the government has determined you are entitled to. A government provides backing for money which is the method of exchange which allows the capitalist economy to work. Without the state, wealth is impossible, so the idea that you're entitled to every bit of your gross income always struck me as absurd.
There's also the dynamic that redistribution from the wealthy to the poor is actually good for the economy. This has been repeatedly shown by economists. The basic reason is a poor person spends close to 100% of their money, while the wealthy put some of each dollar into savings. This might be good for the individual, but money saved, rather than spent, is bad for GDP. Even though the vast majority of savings are invested somewhere, that means nothing by itself, because investments can only grow if markets are growing, and markets can only grow if spending is growing.
First, entitlement is not a bad word. Social Security is an entitlement. So is Medicare. It just means something we're entitled to under law.
Second, just saying "everyone can work harder" is no solution. Even if it were true, if person X works harder, they push person Y out of a job. There will always be winners, and there will always be losers. And frankly, the more we attempt to make things "fair" by eliminating advantages bestowed for unfair reasons (like mommy and daddy giving you a leg up) the more those who end up on the bottom are the ones who clearly never had a shot at being a contender.
None of us make it to where we are without government support though. Government is at the root of everything. Even if you're a fan of the "night watchmen state" that libertarians prefer, without government none of this is possible. A government provides a stable civil society with an armed force and police. A government provides a system of property laws (including intellectual property/patents) which ensure that someone can't just steal what the government has determined you are entitled to. A government provides backing for money which is the method of exchange which allows the capitalist economy to work. Without the state, wealth is impossible, so the idea that you're entitled to every bit of your gross income always struck me as absurd.
There's also the dynamic that redistribution from the wealthy to the poor is actually good for the economy. This has been repeatedly shown by economists. The basic reason is a poor person spends close to 100% of their money, while the wealthy put some of each dollar into savings. This might be good for the individual, but money saved, rather than spent, is bad for GDP. Even though the vast majority of savings are invested somewhere, that means nothing by itself, because investments can only grow if markets are growing, and markets can only grow if spending is growing.
First, Who said entitlement was a bad word? Thinking one is entitled to something someone else has because they want it, and have no desire to work for it is a ridiculous sentiment of entitlement, and has zero to do with a strawman argument of Social Security and/or Medicare.
Second, Who said “everyone can work harder”?
Who said anyone can make it without government?
Do you think that someone who works a low paying job because it’s easier, but is qualified and capable of working a higher paying job and making more, is entitled to what a person with more money and belongings has?
Ultimately, the goal of any society should be to try and move us towards human flourishing - making the world incrementally better for its citizens, and minimizing suffering. Looking at the arc of history, there's really no evidence that "tough love" results in better long-term outcomes for everyone, or even the majority, which means it's just making people suffer needlessly for no reason whatsoever.
i feel we DO do that. we recognize the value in free educational resources (the Carnegie Library, etc.), safe schools, the need for a police force, restrictions and expected standards on adult material and obscenity on publicly accessed entertainment, and so on.
The government is active in moving medicine, health, and nutritional science forward. Typically, it acts to try to create jobs....
There are countless charities that struggle to ease physical suffering...
I think the crux of what we are talking about is what some people see as excessive involvement at a personal level from the government, with not a great return on that investment.
your discussion about people who simply are not capable is true, but what the argument is really about is that people might CHOOSE that way of living, or abuse the altruism they receive, I guess.
Do you think that someone who works a low paying job because it’s easier, but is qualified and capable of working a higher paying job and making more, is entitled to what a person with more money and belongings has?
I don't think rate of pay has much of anything to do with hard work. Working in a field picking tomatoes all day is much harder work than sitting in an office, but the farmworker makes a fraction of what the office worker does.
In general I would say that higher pay jobs are higher-skill jobs, but that is not the same thing. For example, engineers get paid a very decent salary by national standards. This is not because engineers by nature work harder than other people. It's because they have certain technical skills (including a proficiency in math) that only a small subset of the population has. In addition, the level of training engineers get is relatively onerous (requiring many more credit-hours than the typical college degree) which scares a lot of people without inherent interest away. Their skillset is rare, hence in demand, but there is a relatively low supply of engineers, so they are highly paid.
Another example is doctors. It's actually not all that hard to be a doctor all things considered. They do not require the same quantitative skills as an engineer. All you really need is a reasonably high IQ and to have a good memory for what you've read/experienced in the past. But the AMA has set up a system with a limited number of slots in med school each year. This is an effective cartel for the medical industry, which keeps wages for physicians quite high.
Regardless, if we all were identical in skill sets - if we all had the aptitude to do any job - it would stand to reason that the jobs which would pay the most would be the ones which were most unpleasant. But in general, unpleasant jobs - things like cleaning toilets and working in chicken-processing plants - are very low paid. The reason that people are in these jobs is not because they are "easier."
Quote:
Originally Posted by szug-bot
I think the crux of what we are talking about is what some people see as excessive involvement at a personal level from the government, with not a great return on that investment.
your discussion about people who simply are not capable is true, but what the argument is really about is that people might CHOOSE that way of living, or abuse the altruism they receive, I guess.
Sure, there are people like that. My brother had a friend from high school who decided to move to Berkeley and be a gutter punk. He lived by panhandling for a few years. He was done with the "lifestyle" when he woke up one morning to discover his roommate killed his girlfriend while he was high and wanted help burying her body. He's a car salesman now, IIRC.
I also knew someone who purposefully set up their life to not have a full time job, so they could get buy solely on selling rare music on ebay. They moved to the middle of nowhere in rural NC, didn't have a car, and did lots of other things to keep their cost-of-living very very low. It worked for them.
But I feel like we we can't make judgements based upon anecdote, you know. We have to look at the preponderance of evidence. And from everything I've read, just giving poor people money demonstrably improves their lives - and even the outcome of their children's lives - over doing nothing at all. A few people might cheat their way into the system, but my understanding is generally speaking the government usually spends more money on enforcement than it ever gets trying to crack down on these people. Just cutting checks no questions asked (e.g., basic income) is actually more cost-effective.
I don't think rate of pay has much of anything to do with hard work. Working in a field picking tomatoes all day is much harder work than sitting in an office, but the farmworker makes a fraction of what the office worker does.
In general I would say that higher pay jobs are higher-skill jobs, but that is not the same thing. For example, engineers get paid a very decent salary by national standards. This is not because engineers by nature work harder than other people. It's because they have certain technical skills (including a proficiency in math) that only a small subset of the population has. In addition, the level of training engineers get is relatively onerous (requiring many more credit-hours than the typical college degree) which scares a lot of people without inherent interest away. Their skillset is rare, hence in demand, but there is a relatively low supply of engineers, so they are highly paid.
Another example is doctors. It's actually not all that hard to be a doctor all things considered. They do not require the same quantitative skills as an engineer. All you really need is a reasonably high IQ and to have a good memory for what you've read/experienced in the past. But the AMA has set up a system with a limited number of slots in med school each year. This is an effective cartel for the medical industry, which keeps wages for physicians quite high.
Regardless, if we all were identical in skill sets - if we all had the aptitude to do any job - it would stand to reason that the jobs which would pay the most would be the ones which were most unpleasant. But in general, unpleasant jobs - things like cleaning toilets and working in chicken-processing plants - are very low paid. The reason that people are in these jobs is not because they are "easier.".
You must’ve misunderstood, and also didn’t answer my question, so I’ll try again in simpler terms.
There are many who choose to do an easier and lower paying job because they don’t want to work a higher paying job because to them it’s harder.
Are they entitled to more than they get paid even though they are qualified and capable of working the higher paying job like others choose to do?
Are those that choose to work lower paying jobs even though they’re capable of doing the same job as someone else, deserve what the other person has because that person has more money and belongings?
There are many who choose to do an easier and lower paying job because they don’t want to work a higher paying job because to them it’s harder.
This is an assertion without any proof. Unless you can show me some statistics to support this, I don't believe the number is many.
There certainly are people who choose to "downsize" their lives to a lower-paid job - particularly later in life once they've made money off their first career. I do not believe there are seriously a lot of people making $10.50 at a day care who decide not to go into an office job they are qualified for because it's "too hard." Most people have a very inflated impression of their own worth as a worker regardless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erieguy
Are they entitled to more than they get paid even though they are qualified and capable of working the higher paying job like others choose to do?
You mean do I support a higher minimum wage? Absolutely. Lots of places have implemented $15 minimum wages now (Florida will start as well) and there's been zero evidence to support a negative economic impact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erieguy
Are those that choose to work lower paying jobs even though they’re capable of doing the same job as someone else, deserve what the other person has because that person has more money and belongings?
Maybe? As I said, I really don't think there's a large grouping of poor people who could be wealthy if they only tried. But there's plenty of undeserving wealthy people. I strongly support the idea of a "maximum wage." People like Jeff Bezos existing is fundamentally bad for democracy, because once you get past the point of a net worth of say $10 million the only real point of accumulating further wealth is the pursuit of power. It's simply not good for America that three men (Bezos, Gates, and Buffett) have more wealth than half of all Americans put together.
This is an assertion without any proof. Unless you can show me some statistics to support this, I don't believe the number is many.
There certainly are people who choose to "downsize" their lives to a lower-paid job - particularly later in life once they've made money off their first career. I do not believe there are seriously a lot of people making $10.50 at a day care who decide not to go into an office job they are qualified for because it's "too hard." Most people have a very inflated impression of their own worth as a worker regardless.
You mean do I support a higher minimum wage? Absolutely. Lots of places have implemented $15 minimum wages now (Florida will start as well) and there's been zero evidence to support a negative economic impact.
Maybe? As I said, I really don't think there's a large grouping of poor people who could be wealthy if they only tried. But there's plenty of undeserving wealthy people. I strongly support the idea of a "maximum wage." People like Jeff Bezos existing is fundamentally bad for democracy, because once you get past the point of a net worth of say $10 million the only real point of accumulating further wealth is the pursuit of power. It's simply not good for America that three men (Bezos, Gates, and Buffett) have more wealth than half of all Americans put together.
Except it’s not an assertion. It’s 2 simple questions that require only a yes or no answer.
With all things being equal between 2 people in as far as ability and qualifications, does someone who chooses to take a lower paying job, deserve the same as that person that took the higher paying job?
Nope, didn’t say or imply anything about higher minimum wage.
Does someone who chooses to take a lower paying job, but has the ability to take a higher paying job, deserve money and belongings from the person who took the higher paying job to acquire these things?
Plenty of undeserving wealthy people? Lol. You nor anyone else has the right to decide how anyone makes a living or how much they want to have as long as it’s done in the confines of the law.
Good for those 3. They worked to do it and deserve what they made. Other than paying their required taxes they don’t owe anyone anything for nothing.
Except it’s not an assertion. It’s 2 simple questions that require only a yes or no answer.
With all things being equal between 2 people in as far as ability and qualifications, does someone who chooses to take a lower paying job, deserve the same as that person that took the higher paying job?
Nope, didn’t say or imply anything about higher minimum wage.
Does someone who chooses to take a lower paying job, but has the ability to take a higher paying job, deserve money and belongings from the person who took the higher paying job to acquire these things?
Plenty of undeserving wealthy people? Lol. You nor anyone else has the right to decide how anyone makes a living or how much they want to have as long as it’s done in the confines of the law.
Good for those 3. They worked to do it and deserve what they made. Other than paying their required taxes they don’t owe anyone anything for nothing.
I believe the American dream is attainable. Is life fair? No. Do people need to work to get what they want? Yes. Does it take time, flexibility and patience? Yes.
I started out on the bottom rung in hud housing. I worked to get an education. The first few jobs I had paid meager wages. I’ve put in for hundreds of jobs over the last 15 years of my life. Been rejected a lot, but I kept moving forward. I really wanted it and became empowered. I lived 3 other places to take a better job before getting a flexible position that pays extremely well and allows me flexibility to live where I choose. Those other places were not on my radar and not deemed as very desirable. I took the position and things got better and better.
I don’t feel sorry for people. You choose your own path. Life is hard but anything worth having takes hard work, time, patience and flexibility. When you attain that on your own you appreciate things and take care of your house and property. Giving higher minimum wage so somebody can afford a house with a foundation as opposed to one with wheels just because is not the answer and doesn’t solve problems.
Giving someone something for free never works. I’ve witnessed it first hand with all types of people. That’s how you end up with dilapidated neighborhoods.
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.
