The rich have money -- and passion

[jman507]

…from this are we suppposed to get that people who work as employees in low to middle income jobs are not self sufficient enough and not hard working… leverage to say that such people are lucky to get paid at all doing what they do (because they aren’t acheiving their potential) and don’t deserve government protection in the form of labour laws (a minimum wage, gauranteed half hour lunchbreak, overtime pay etc). Is this not the point of view of someone who employs and wants to minimise labour costs, or someone who is completely self-sufficient (farmers or a self-employed tradesman) and has little sympathy for those who work standard 8:00-5:00 jobs?

It is a fallacy to think to work hard will create more wealth. If you want to make a simple model, you can produce goods and you can consume goods. To really know if your going to have a net accumalation of wealth, you have to step back and look at how much is being consumed. as well as what is being produced. You might also want to take in to consideration if the work that goes into producing the good can be made more effeciently.

Part of the problem is with the thinking how can we make everyone middle class and can that be sustained? While it seems Vern seems to want to call himself a capitalist, and people make him out to be a materialist, to make that assumption seems silly to me. What you think of middle-class does not seem to be in harmoney with what Vern proposed. Anyone who’s saying we need an “inculcate in them the values of hard work, saving and investing,” and I think I might add how to make good judgement, isn’t exactly a materialist, when he is seeking the spirit of how one should live.

I don’t think spending money on credit to keep up with the Jones are the right values. You want to know who should be the next dishwashers? There is a good chance the person who is a millionair might just as well said “D.I.Y.” – do it yourself! Or have the kids do it, at least load up the dishwasher. It often is a whole lot cheaper to make a meal yourself than to go to a fancy resturant. After-all one thing about anyone who is a millionair that person must have been living under their means. Anyone who is in debt a million with little to show for it, probably lived well above his means. That person with some wealth doesn’t exactly have to be anyone’s slave, and has more ability to pick and choose work.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If the analysis is accurate, then that’s fine. If it’s not, then I will respond accordingly.

Oh, my analysis of your position is accurate – you have my word for it.

Yes, but I believe that it only a piece of the puzzle, not the whole picture.

That’s Perfectionist argument, the proposition that we can’t work on a problem until we have a perfect solution in hand.

But if we can educate the children of the poor – and inculcate in all children the value of hard work, saving and investing, we can solve much of the problem.

Considering not everything is economic in nature, I agree with that. We aren’t doing our job as individuals and as a society.

And that’s my point.

Everything we need to dramatically reduce poverty in this country is in place. It is lack of education and values that prevent us from accomplishing it.

Exceptions don’t make the rule. Let’s talk about the how things work for most people, not your little exception. You may live in the country and CAN do those things. Our country is pretty urbanized, so most of us don’t have gardens and 3/4 mile long driveways, etc.

It was my way of politely pointing out that line of argument is a non sequitor. It has nothing to do with the issue being discussed here.

Older cars…meh. Reductio ad absurdum. GENERALLY SPEAKING, what i said was true.

Again, I was demonstrating the non sequitor – the argument you advanced had strayed from the point.

As to substandard schools, when they are so underfunded that teachers and students have to buy chalk or whiteboard pens or the textbooks are old, worn out and/or out of date, then it’s an issue of funding. a

Two points:

1, There is no peer-reviewed study demonstrating a significant correlation between money spend and quality of education.

1. I went to a school exactly like the one you are describing. In fact, I remember a math problem I had – an “aviator” was flying his “aeroplane.” He passed over the village square at a certain time, and over a bridge at another. Given the distance between the two, how fast was the “aviator” flying his “areoplane?”

The answer was . . . 40 miles an hour!!

When kids are taught how to pass a test but not how to reason in a way that will make them successful citizens, that’s a major problem.

Lord, don’t feed me straight lines like that – You know I can’t stand temptation!

I often see this argument advanced – let me point out that if the schools were teaching “how to reason” there would be no need to teach the test.

When kids aren’t taught basic civics, so as to be rendered politically ignorant, it’s an issue of not making informed citizens who can make rational decisions about their own government.

And there is a reason for that – the public schools have ceased to be for the benefit of the children and have become servants for a different clientelle.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I think you ought not assume there are two parents.

Children in single-parent families, by Race: Percent:
United States Non-Hispanic White 23% Black or African American 65% American Indian 49% Asian and Pacific Islander 17% Hispanic or Latino 36% Total 32%

kidscount.org/sld/compare_results.jsp?i=722

One third of children are in single parent households. It can be true that single parents can make great and encouraging parents, and two parent households can be poisonous to a child’s future, but a single parent has more constraints on their time and resources, than a two-parent family. Two parents can play off of each other and help check each other. There is some wisdom in putting God first, spouse second, and children third. God will keep you on the right direction, a good synergy with your spouse helps make the time more effecient and productive with the third priority your children.

Some of those split ups were probably for the better, but you must remember with any split up, it’s a net loser for mother, father, and child, all except for the lawyers. While I’m sure the services by lawyers go down as GDP, I doubt that it’s the best use of preservation of capital. It would go a lot further for the couple to be better prepped for marriage and family life and stay together, than putting a nice down payment on a home and giving it to the lawyer. Plus now they have to go and find two more smaller places to live. If they both wanted to work they could play off of each other’s schedule to make sure the children are cared for, and can be available to work.

Plus I’d have to wonder, if having a broken home, might not give a good example of married life to the children, thus causing them to be even more unprepared for marriage.

In the end, it’s probably far more common for the people really struggling to put food on the table, especially for most of a child’s life, are more likely going to be single parent households, and not the double parent households, unless one parent has a long-term injury or illness. If assistance is going to be given, it’s going to be far better, to prevent the cases where it can be prevented, and give assistance to those who would be unable otherwise.

Oh, I agree completely. It’s even worse all the way around when there’s only one parent in the home.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Oh, I agree completely. It’s even worse all the way around when there’s only one parent in the home.

Part of the problem was the “man in the house” rule – a woman couldn’t get welfare if there was a man in the house, since he should support his family. We created a society where a man was both an incumberance and unnecessary (once the child was conceived.)

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Oh, my analysis of your position is accurate – you have my word for it.

That’s Perfectionist argument, the proposition that we can’t work on a problem until we have a perfect solution in hand.

That’s not what I am saying. I am saying that there’s more to the issue than merely saying, “go to college” or “get a better edumacation.”

It’s more of the same, “give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime” while ignoring the fact that the ponds have been fenced off and you can only fish for someone else on below-subsistence wages.

But if we can educate the children of the poor – and inculcate in all children the value of hard work, saving and investing, we can solve much of the problem.

No, we can only make a bunch of people who can take a test while still not able to get a job because all the good jobs are gone.

Everything we need to dramatically reduce poverty in this country is in place. It is lack of education and values that prevent us from accomplishing it.

Actually, there’s something lacking. We are in the Second Gilded Age in this country. We need to get rid of the influence of corporations and let the We the People have the primary voice in this country.

As an aside because I read it everywhere: capitalism is not a political system. We are a democratic republic that has a capitlaist economy. Unfortunately, our capitalist economy has morphed into a corporatocracy where small businesses are unable to compete. I am for regulated capitalism where small businesses are able to arise.

It was my way of politely pointing out that line of argument is a non sequitor. It has nothing to do with the issue being discussed here.

Again, I was demonstrating the non sequitor – the argument you advanced had strayed from the point.

Seems that you don’t want to see the whole picture and would rather see one part of the problem and say it’s the whole problem.

Ever hear the story of the blind folk who came across an elephant?

Two points:

1, There is no peer-reviewed study demonstrating a significant correlation between money spend and quality of education.

1. I went to a school exactly like the one you are describing. In fact, I remember a math problem I had – an “aviator” was flying his “aeroplane.” He passed over the village square at a certain time, and over a bridge at another. Given the distance between the two, how fast was the “aviator” flying his “areoplane?”

The answer was . . . 40 miles an hour!!

Point?

Lord, don’t feed me straight lines like that – You know

I can’t stand temptation!

May I recommend a good confessor?

I often see this argument advanced – let me point out that if the schools were teaching “how to reason” there would be no need

to teach the test.

On that we agree. Unfortunately, I don’t see that you are recommending that be changed.

And there is a reason for that – the public schools have ceased to be for the benefit of the children and have become servants for a different clientelle.

Yes, but it’s who I am certain you are going to blame (labor). Do corporations, who have more sway than We the People, want our kids to be aware of what the Constitution says and how our government works?

I work for state government here in California and I can tell you that people care completely ignorant about how things work. I have to field calls from people who don’t know the difference between their opinions and written law.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That’s not what I am saying. I am saying that there’s more to the issue than merely saying, “go to college” or “get a better edumacation.”

And you present this as some unique insight?

The question I asked at the beginning of this thread was how to educate and inculcate values into children. And that’s where it gets difficult and complicated.

It is, of course the combination of education and values that leads to a solution.

It’s more of the same, “give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime” while ignoring the fact that the ponds have been fenced off and you can only fish for someone else on below-subsistence wages.

I think the cites at the beginning of the thread demonstrated taht the ponds are not fenced off, and you can fish for yourself.

One of the cites gave real-world examples of people who started well behind the power curve and still succeeded economically.

Would you mind if I now exercised my privilige and analysed your position?

Don’t try! The game is fixed against you. No amount of educaiton can help you! Just sit there and be a victim.

No, we can only make a bunch of people who can take a test while still not able to get a job because all the good jobs are gone.

I think you just proved my analysis accurate.

Question: What is the current unemployment rate?

Actually, there’s something lacking. We are in the Second Gilded Age in this country. We need to get rid of the influence of corporations and let the We the People have the primary voice in this country.

What on earth do you mean by that?

As an aside because I read it everywhere: capitalism is not a political system.

Wow! What a blinding flash of the obvious!

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production distribution, for profit, in a competitive system.

We are a democratic republic that has a capitlaist economy. Unfortunately, our capitalist economy has morphed into a corporatocracy where small businesses are unable to compete. I am for regulated capitalism where small businesses are able to arise.

Got anything to back up that theory?

Seems that you don’t want to see the whole picture and would rather see one part of the problem and say it’s the whole problem.

And you do have the whole picture?

Ever hear the story of the blind folk who came across an elephant?

As I recall, they decided the elephans had morphed into a corporatocracy where small businesses are unable to compete.

May I recommend a good confessor?

Don’t need one – this time, I resisted the temptation. But it was a struggle.

On that we agree. Unfortunately, I don’t see that you are recommending that be changed.

I started this thread with a question.

But, yes, I recommend the education system be changed – to a true choice system, where parents choose the schools, and the government pays about 90-95% of the per-pupil share of the education budget as a standard tuition.

In other words, let the consumer govern the system.

Yes, but it’s who I am certain you are going to blame (labor). Do corporations, who have more sway than We the People, want our kids to be aware of what the Constitution says and how our government works?

“Labor?” Who injected “labor” into this mess?

I work for state government here in California and I can tell you that people care completely ignorant about how things work. I have to field calls from people who don’t know the difference between their opinions and written law.

More proof that the Public Education system has failed.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I think the cites at the beginning of the thread demonstrated taht the ponds are not fenced off, and you can fish for yourself.

One of the cites gave real-world examples of people who started well behind the power curve and still succeeded economically.

All well and good. For a few, riches await them at the end of the rainbow, but capitalism doesn’t work is everyone is rich. I’m talking about that vast majority that will never become rich but can become middle class.

Question: What is the current unemployment rate?

The official unemployment rate or the rate of unemployment that includes people who haven’t been able to find employment in years.

And let’s not forget the underemployment rate as well as those who have never fully recovered from the layoffs of earlier this decade.

What on earth do you mean by that?

The Gilded Age. You know, the late 19th Century/early 20th Century in the United States. This political cartoon describes it rather well:

http://www.edusolution.com/regentsexams/ushistory/aug2001/dbq4.gif

Wow! What a blinding flash of the obvious!

Yes, but it needed to be said as it is frequently overlooked.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production distribution, for profit, in a competitive system.

Which, when unregulated, is unacceptable for a Catholic to advocate.

As I recall, they decided the elephans had morphed into a corporatocracy where small businesses are unable to compete.

Um. No, nice try, though.

Three blind men happened upon an elephant and each described the part they were feeling: one said the elephant is long and wide and has a wet end with two holes. The other said, no, it’s big and flat and flaps about. The other said, no, it’s big and wrinkly. Each of the men insisted that they were aware of the whole elephant while one was only aware of the trunk, another of the ear and another of the side.

But, yes, I recommend the education system be changed – to a true choice system, where parents choose the schools, and the government pays about 90-95% of the per-pupil share of the education budget as a standard tuition.

In other words, let the consumer govern the system.

It sounds to good in theory. Too bad in will not have the result you think. What will happen is that public schools will become the dumping ground for those who will not make it into the private schools who can set their own standards who to accept and reject. Public schools do not have that luxury.

“Labor?” Who injected “labor” into this mess?

Aren’t teachers unions the nefarious group who has an eeeevil agenda to not teach our kids anything?

More proof that the Public Education system has failed.

Or needs to be repaired?

 

[vern_humphrey]

All well and good. For a few, riches await them at the end of the rainbow, but capitalism doesn’t work is everyone is rich. I’m talking about that vast majority that will never become rich but can become middle class.

What’s your basis for saying that?

How do you know the “vast majority that will never become rich?”

And what’s wrong with advancing the poor to the self-supporting middle class?

The official unemployment rate or the rate of unemployment that includes people who haven’t been able to find employment in years.

And let’s not forget the underemployment rate as well as those who have never fully recovered from the layoffs of earlier this decade.

Nice dodge – what’s the current unemployment rate?

Which, when unregulated, is unacceptable for a Catholic to advocate.

And your point is?

Um. No, nice try, though.

Actually, yes – the blind men did not know what the elephant was – and relied on their limited experience to define it.

It sounds to good in theory. Too bad in will not have the result you think. What will happen is that public schools will become the dumping ground for those who will not make it into the private schools who can set their own standards who to accept and reject. Public schools do not have that luxury.

And who “will not make it into the private schools who can set their own standards who to accept and reject?” If we’re smart enough to see an obstacle ahead of time, we’re smart enough to plan a way around it.

Aren’t teachers unions the nefarious group who has an eeeevil agenda to not teach our kids anything?

Teachers claim to be a profession, which is to say, not labor. But like other unions, they are a conspiracy against the rest of us – and they do great damage to the educational system.

Or needs to be repaired?

How do you propose we repair it – other than by throwing money at it?

From csmonitor.com/2003/0422/p13s02-lepr.html

Since 1983 there has been “a lot of effort and goodwill and activity and money spent on our schools, and yet very little to show for it by way of improvement,” says Chester Finn, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and chairman of the Koret Task Force.

 

[vern_humphrey]

For those who feel “the vast majority can never become rich” I offer this.

In my pasture, I often find arrowheads (actually dart heads) and other small artifacts. This spot, near a good fishing hole on Lick Fork Creek, was a seasonal camp for those Indians we call “Ozark Bluff Dwellers.”

Imagine what it would be like if one of those Ozark Bluff Dwellers could be transported into our time. He would be stunned by the wealth I have – just in my pockets!! Think how miraculous my pocket knife would be to him! And my butane lighter – fire with the twitch of my thumb!

Suppose he could visit my house – light in the dark, with the flip of a switch. Cooking without fire! A magic box where strange people appeared, spoke, and did all sorts of things!

Now imagine we could go back in time – without any of the trappings of our civilization – and try to convince the Ozark Bluff Dwellers that someday everyone will have this magnificent wealth.

Yes, everyone can be wealthy.

 

[cynic]

you’re trying to compare changes in human civilization over thousands of years to some idea that every individual can be a millionaire if they try hard enough? No offence but you’ve got to be taking the ****.

 

[chicago]

What did Jack Benny ever do for Freddy the Freeloader? And who was the happier man?

 

[stinkcat_14]

The question of whether everyone can be rich is certainly a debatable one. There are some goods for which as we produce more, the cost goes down. For example, TV’s and computers cost less than they did 20 years ago because of huge productivity gains. On the other hand, things like health care and higher education cost more because we haven’t had the productivity gains that we have had in other industries. We (in the US) gain in certain ways because other people are poor. My pants are less expensive because they are made by low wage people in Indonesia. If everyone there becomes rich, pants will become more expensive. which of course will make me less rich .

What is the answer? I think we still have significant room for growth in wealth, but it is not clear as to whether everyone can be rich. The other issue that complicates things is that whatever we have, it never seems to be enough.

 

[vern_humphrey]

you’re trying to compare changes in human civilization over thousands of years to some idea that every individual can be a millionaire if they try hard enough?

Now let me point out the true difference in wealth between me and the Ozark Bluff Dweller. I’m not weathier than he because I have more deer hides, more atlatls, **more **baskets and so on. I’m wealthier than he because I have things that didn’t exist in his time.

There is no reason changes have to take a thousand years. I can remember when there was no television, no desktop computers, no jet planes, no nuclear power, no artificial sattelites in space and so on. That all came about in my lifetime.

There have been more inventions since I was born than there were in the whole of history before I was born.

Condsider the next edition of Microsoft Windows. Is it real? You bet! Is it needed? There will be many companies that have to have it. It is valuable? Yes – if you owned the rights to the next edition of Microsoft Windows, you’d automatically be a billionaire.

What’s it made of?

It’s made of pure thought! We live in a world where a product made of pure thought is worth billions!

No offence but you’ve got to be taking the ****.

No offence but you’ve got to be taking the ****.

 

[anthony022071]

A society composed of affluent people,without there being even more lower-class and poor people that they can distinguish themselves from,cannot exist.The existence of a middle class pre-supposes and necessitates the existence of a lower class which is at least as large. Wealth and poverty are defined against each other. Somebody has to do the grunt work,the manual labor,factory,farming,and manufacturing jobs. Since we don’t have a slave class or a large proportion of lower class legal citizens like we used to , American companies resort to global out-sourceing and illegal immigration. The more middle-class and affluent Americans become, the more heavily we must rely upon
the labor of poor people in other countries. Economic structures are subject to the law of gravity just like architectural structures.
You can’t have a middle-class hovering above the poverty line unsupported by an even greater proportion,at home or abroad,of lower-class and poor people underneath. That would be like a second-storey building hovering above ground unsupported by a first storey and a foundation. Also, if it were possible for everyone to make a middle-class salary,like $50,000 a year, then making that amount of money would become inadequate to maintain a middle-class life-style. The dollar would be that much more depreciated in value. The more people that crowd into the middle-class, the more the buying-power of the dollar goes down,since so many of us are making so much money. It’s like 20 people trying to get into a life-boat made for 10. The whole thing is going to sink.

Any of you who think we can all be affluent,show me where I’m wrong.

 

[cynic]

Condsider the next edition of Microsoft Windows. Is it real? You bet! Is it needed? There will be many companies that have to have it. It is valuable? Yes – if you owned the rights to the next edition of Microsoft Windows, you’d automatically be a billionaire.

and what of the thousands of programmers in India that worked 10+ hours a day, 6 days a week to come up with it, without which there would be no product? Are they going to be millionaires?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

A society composed of affluent people,without there being even more lower-class and poor people that they can distinguish themselves from,cannot exist.The existence of a middle class pre-supposes and necessitates the existence of a lower class which is at least as large. Wealth and poverty are defined against each other. Somebody has to do the grunt work,the manual Labor, factory, farming,and manufacturing jobs. Since we don’t have a slave class or a large proportion of lower class legal citizens like we used to , American companies resort to global out-sourceing and illegal immigration. The more middle-class and affluent Americans become, the more heavily we must rely upon the labor of poor people in other countries. Economic structures are subject to the law of gravity just like architectural structures.
You can’t have a middle-class hovering above the poverty line unsupported by an even greater proportion,at home or abroad,of lower-class and poor people underneath. That would be like a second-storey building hovering above ground unsupported by a first storey and a foundation. Also, if it were possible for everyone to make a middle-class salary,like $50,000 a year, then making that amount of money would become inadequate to maintain a middle-class life-style. The dollar would be that much more depreciated in value. The more people that crowd into the middle-class, the more the buying-power of the dollar goes down,since so many of us are making so much money. It’s like 20 people trying to get into a life-boat made for 10. The whole thing is going to sink.

Any of you who think we can all be affluent,show me where I’m wrong.

I would not use the term"wrong" I think others are refering to scale. If you had a society in which the lowest annual resource was $38K, and the highest was $68k you would still define the subgroups as poor, working poor, middle class, rich, and wealthy. However the standards of living would be much closer. I once heard some interesting comments on this from Warren Buffet concerning is living standard verse a typpical American ( lets say middle class) he stated it is very little difference. He drives a fairly standard auto, wears practically the same clothes, eats food of his choosing as they do, uses same phone, TV, computer, highway, water, sewer system, etc, etc.
Now the difference is in the poeple who do not have enough food, water, clothes, highways, sewers, etc. Overall free trade and private property rights have so far proven the most successful why to improve their lives. The process is not easy however this appears the best current solution

 

[vern_humphrey]

and what of the thousands of programmers in India that worked 10+ hours a day, 6 days a week to come up with it, without which there would be no product? Are they going to be millionaires?

Eventually, yes. India, unlike the United States has structural problems to day (caste, for example) that hinder broas-based accumulation of wealth. But that’s chainging. The next generation in India will be more affluent than this one, and the one after more affluent still.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I once heard some interesting comments on this from Warren Buffet concerning is living standard verse a typpical American ( lets say middle class) he stated it is very little difference. He drives a fairly standard auto, wears practically the same clothes, eats food of his choosing as they do, uses same phone, TV, computer, highway, water, sewer system, etc, etc.

I find Buffet to be an interesting character. A lot of his ideas seem quite in harmony with Catholic Social Teaching (some of them clearly aren’t, such as his views on abortion). For example, he had a very perceptive essay last year on the problems with our executive compensation system. The main problem is that they use their power to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of the shareholders.

 

[Maxply]

I agree with Stinkcat above. If you have money or a business has money, they lobby for changes in the tax laws so that they keep more of it, often pushing off the burden of social expenses onto others, either through the tax code, or pollution regulation, etc.

It’s clear that the rich USE our common resources more than the poor (e.g., have a much greater reliance upon transportation, communication, financial instutitions, etc.) Interesting how we can tax just about anything in the U.S. but financial transactions (they do this, however, in England). So they should be taxes more. I’m tired of hearing the rich valorized in the press as being Great Giants and Benefactors of Humanity; they’re doing it for bucks, not philanthropy.

The libertarian stuff is fine for making big rhetoric, but not so good in terms of appreciating the whole human economic and political scheme. For me, it’s clear markets require active, ongoing regulation to work well. . . and equally clear that corporate insiders frequently benefit unjustly from their inside knowledge.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I agree with Stinkcat above. If you have money or a business has money, they lobby for changes in the tax laws so that they keep more of it, often pushing off the burden of social expenses onto others, either through the tax code, or pollution regulation, etc.

It’s clear that the rich USE our common resources more than the poor (e.g., have a much greater reliance upon transportation, communication, financial instutitions, etc.) Interesting how we can tax just about anything in the U.S. but financial transactions (they do this, however, in England). So they should be taxes more. I’m tired of hearing the rich valorized in the press as being Great Giants and Benefactors of Humanity; they’re doing it for bucks, not philanthropy.

Let me get this straight, the poor pay no taxes, and benefit from welfare, subsidized housing and so on. That costs money. But the people who pay the taxes get back more than they put it?

By george, they must have discovered the Economic Perpetual Motion machine!

The libertarian stuff is fine for making big rhetoric, but not so good in terms of appreciating the whole human economic and political scheme. For me, it’s clear markets require active, ongoing regulation to work well. . . and equally clear that corporate insiders frequently benefit unjustly from their inside knowledge.

And when they do, they go to jail.