Simplest reason poor are poor

• BoatShoes

  WebFire;1587376 wrote:You are artificially creating jobs to give to people who can't find work. That is working for welfare. Sure they earned it, only in the sense they were made to in order to receive what would otherwise be welfare.

  Today I learned that Webfire thinks that Military Infantrymen are equivalent to welfare recipients. A public servant employed in productive activity domestically is just as valuable to our Commonwealth as I was when I was an E-1 Boatswain's Mate.
  
  This is your problem. You don't seem to get that the Federal Government always has demand for labor and always has more than enough funds to satisfy those demands if it so desires. There is nothing "artificial" about it. The Federal Government can always have demand for labor as it has the Power of the Purse. That is not the case for currency users in the private economy.
  
  Belly35, Believer did you see that? Webfire is basically equating the Federal Government hiring you and sending you to Southeast Asia instead of your getting private sector jobs to getting welfare. What a guy!
• WebFire

  BoatShoes;1587428 wrote:Today I learned that Webfire thinks that Military Infantrymen are equivalent to welfare recipients. A public servant employed in productive activity domestically is just as valuable to our Commonwealth as I was when I was an E-1 Boatswain's Mate.
  
  This is your problem. You don't seem to get that the Federal Government always has demand for labor and always has more than enough funds to satisfy those demands if it so desires. There is nothing "artificial" about it. The Federal Government can always have demand for labor as it has the Power of the Purse. That is not the case for currency users in the private economy.
  
  Belly35, Believer did you see that? Webfire is basically equating the Federal Government hiring you and sending you to Southeast Asia instead of your getting private sector jobs to getting welfare. What a guy!

  If that's what you learned, than you are pretty damn stupid.
• WebFire

  BoatShoes;1587428 wrote:Today I learned that Webfire thinks that Military Infantrymen are equivalent to welfare recipients. A public servant employed in productive activity domestically is just as valuable to our Commonwealth as I was when I was an E-1 Boatswain's Mate.
  
  This is your problem. You don't seem to get that the Federal Government always has demand for labor and always has more than enough funds to satisfy those demands if it so desires. There is nothing "artificial" about it. The Federal Government can always have demand for labor as it has the Power of the Purse. That is not the case for currency users in the private economy.
  
  Belly35, Believer did you see that? Webfire is basically equating the Federal Government hiring you and sending you to Southeast Asia instead of your getting private sector jobs to getting welfare. What a guy!

  So...the only public servant jobs you would create to replace welfare are military infantry men? Because that's not at all what I was thinking.
• WebFire

  BoatShoes;1587428 wrote: Belly35, Believer did you see that? Webfire is basically equating the Federal Government hiring you and sending you to Southeast Asia instead of your getting private sector jobs to getting welfare. What a guy!

  That could be the biggest stretch of all time. Wow. Just wow.
• WebFire

  isadore;1587391 wrote:gosh you folks love to beat the poor over the head with examples like this. Examples that are not analogous to the situation of the large majority of the poor in this country.

  The large majority of the poor don't put in the effort to be an example.
• WebFire

  If Boatshoes knew how to have a 2 way discussion, instead of making stuff up to make the other side look bad, this is what he would have learned:
  
  - Instead of issuing welfare checks to people who sit at home and watch tv all day, the feds create jobs and require people to work for that same check. Doesn't matter much if the jobs are even necessary, because you'd still be paying the money out if the job wasn't there.
  
  - This would help the worker gain job experience, and also likely give them some desire to pursue a better path, since the job would probably be manual labor of some sort.
  
  - Jobs could be anything in the public sector. They don't have to be military infantry. That is just the example Boatshoes used. Though this is certainly one are where jobs could be created.
  
  - If you opt out of the program, no welfare check for you.
  
  I don't know if it would work or not. But it certainly seems better than what we have now.
• Belly35

  

  Hey! Bring back the Draft ….
  If this means that individual would get the training to achieve, goals to accomplish, understanding responsibility, dedication to ones self and others, serve their country, be proud, grateful for what is given, thankful what they have and wake up to reality …. Hell of a lot better than what is in the social serves entitlement programs and the mentality of blaming others for the lot in life they’ve created.
• BoatShoes

  WebFire;1587461 wrote:If that's what you learned, than you are pretty damn stupid.

  It's called a reductio ad absurdum. Your assertion that compensation for services in rendered in any fashion might be appropriately compared to gratuity is absurd.
  
  In reality, many of them can create valuable output performing the same functions that Military Boatswain's Mates do on Naval Ships in their own communities. Saying they are "working for welfare" presumes that they are not creating value.
• BoatShoes

  WebFire;1587463 wrote:So...the only public servant jobs you would create to replace welfare are military infantry men? Because that's not at all what I was thinking.

  No, their economic and social value that they would create would provide similar utility to the Federal Government as the average E-1. The point is that you would never say that an average E-1 is just "working for welfare". No, they are providing valuable public service that deserves honor and respect...not derision by calling it "working for welfare"
• BoatShoes

  Belly35;1587469 wrote:Hey! Bring back the Draft ….
  If this means that individual would get the training to achieve, goals to accomplish, understanding responsibility, dedication to ones self and others, serve their country, be proud, grateful for what is given, thankful what they have and wake up to reality …. Hell of a lot better than what is in the social serves entitlement programs and the mentality of blaming others for the lot in life they’ve created.

  I agree...but instead of drafting people against their will....just make an open unilateral contract offer to provide valuable public or non-profit service in exchange for compensation for rendering those services.
  
  If you choose not to accept that offer, that is fine but the United States is under no duty to provide compensation as you have rendered no beneficial services upon the Commonwealth.
• BoatShoes

  WebFire;1587468 wrote: Doesn't matter much if the jobs are even necessary.

  For a currency-issuing country the word "necessary" doesn't really come into play. There's always utility that can be gained by its paying people to do it. There is a trade off for its decisions to employ people in productive activity only if it employs too much labor to take away from private firms and could generate inflationary pressures but that is rarely, if ever a problem and would not be if the JG labor was employed at a wage floor below private sector wages. It's simply a choice if the Federal Government wants to use the Public Purse to employ idle resources and that choice can always yield utility unless it will generate price inflation.
  
  And it is still a problem to refer to it as a "welfare check". E-1 military jobs like I had are basically qualified, guaranteed employment for young people. We don't view them as "working for welfare". The concept of "welfare" must be permanently eliminated from the discourse. Like E-1's these people are creating social and economic value and do not deserve to be considered to be "working for welfare".
• BoatShoes

  WebFire;1587465 wrote:The large majority of the poor don't put in the effort to be an example.

  This is why I dismiss your claims of "working for welfare" with veracity. You clearly have an unduly negative opinion of low-wage workers and the poor and it is nauseating. Your contempt for the poor is what would lead you to call a person providing value to his country for compensation to be "working for welfare". Such a statement demeans their productive output when they should be praised for contributing to their country just like an E-1 Boatswain's Mate who swabs decks all day.
• Al Bundy

  BoatShoes;1587545 wrote:This is why I dismiss your claims of "working for welfare" with veracity. You clearly have an unduly negative opinion of low-wage workers and the poor and it is nauseating. Your contempt for the poor is what would lead you to call a person providing value to his country for compensation to be "working for welfare". Such a statement demeans their productive output when they should be praised for contributing to their country just like an E-1 Boatswain's Mate who swabs decks all day.

  There is a bias in this country against people who don't want to work hard. As this video shows, that bias starts in school. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RrreVthWRY
• BoatShoes

  Al Bundy;1587546 wrote:There is a bias in this country against people who don't want to work hard. As this video shows, that bias starts in school. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RrreVthWRY

  The video is funny but I don't see how it is relevant. At least 24 million people who actively claim they want to work or want to work more and yet they cannot find work. Let's have the Federal Government take them up on this desire and offer them the opportunity to work in valuable public service or not-for profit community service. If these people actually don't want to work hard now we can find out for sure.
  
  If the people who claim all these unemployed people are lazy and do not want to work are right, nothing changes except the Federal Government is no longer paying for it.
• Al Bundy

  BoatShoes;1587561 wrote:The video is funny but I don't see how it is relevant. At least 24 million people who actively claim they want to work or want to work more and yet they cannot find work. Let's have the Federal Government take them up on this desire and offer them the opportunity to work in valuable public service or not-for profit community service. If these people actually don't want to work hard now we can find out for sure.
  
  If the people who claim all these unemployed people are lazy and do not want to work are right, nothing changes except the Federal Government is no longer paying for it.

  If people truly want to work, they can find work. It won't be a job where you work 9-5 Monday-Friday and start off at $50,000 with great benefits. People say they want a job, but that does not mean that they are willing to start at a low wage or work nights, weekends, whatever it takes to get it done. You and isadore look at the end product and say its not fair. You don't look at the process that successful people used to become successful. 86% of the millionaires in this country are self-made millionaires. They worked very hard to achieve that level of success.
• WebFire

  BoatShoes;1587545 wrote:This is why I dismiss your claims of "working for welfare" with veracity. You clearly have an unduly negative opinion of low-wage workers and the poor and it is nauseating. Your contempt for the poor is what would lead you to call a person providing value to his country for compensation to be "working for welfare". Such a statement demeans their productive output when they should be praised for contributing to their country just like an E-1 Boatswain's Mate who swabs decks all day.

  I'm calling it what it is. If you create jobs solely to employ people who otherwise cannot find work and would have to be on welfare, then what the hell else is it?
  
  You are trying too hard to make yourself look good, and others bad, when we are both talking about the same damn thing.
• WebFire

  BoatShoes;1587545 wrote:You clearly have an unduly negative opinion of low-wage workers and the poor and it is nauseating.

  Probably because I see a lot of the behavior and decisions of these people. And you're right, it is nauseating.
• WebFire

  I'll tell you what I'm sick of. I'm sick of people like Boatshoes that bring the hammer down on people who truly want to see society improve, and help the poor out of the situations they are in. They claim to want to help the poor, but they only want to do it at everyone else's expense it seems.
  
  I want the poor to not be poor and be contributing members of society. If they choose to not do the latter, then I do not care if they are poor. Boatshoes, are you in agreement or not?
• isadore

  WebFire;1587465 wrote:The large majority of the poor don't put in the effort to be an example.

  Of course you would blame them and use as the stick to beat them a person with advantages most of them do not have.
  Other developed nations do a better job of providing upward social mobility than the supposed land of opportunity does.
• Belly35

  

  isadore;1587627 wrote:Of course you would blame them and use as the stick to beat them a person with advantages most of them do not have.
  Other developed nations do a better job of providing upward social mobility than the supposed land of opportunity does.

  can you name two or three of those "other developed nation" that you are referring to.
  
  isadore you want additional educational training how about the military? Free, voluntary, paid to learn plus addition cash for additional college. Why does the poor not take this avenue to advancement and upward mobility?
• isadore

  Belly35;1587631 wrote:can you name two or three of those "other developed nation" that you are referring to.
  
  isadore you want additional educational training how about the military? Free, voluntary, paid to learn plus addition cash for additional college. Why does the poor not take this avenue to advancement and upward mobility?

  The American Dream is supposed to mean that through hard work and perseverance, even the poorest people can make it to middle class or above. But it's actually harder to move up in America than it is in most other advanced nations.
  It's easier to rise above the class you're born into in countries like Japan, Germany, Australia, and the Scandinavian nations, according to research from University of Ottawa economist and current Russell Sage Foundation Fellow Miles Corak.
  Among the major developed countries, only in Italy and the United Kingdom is there less economic mobility, according to Corak.
  The research measures "intergenerational earnings elasticity" -- a type of economic mobility that measures the correlation between what your parents make and what you make one generation later -- in a number of different countries around the world.
  Most Americans born into the lower class stay in the lower class.
  Economists aren't certain exactly why some countries have a greater degree of mobility than others, but they do point to certain similarities.
  Greater current inequality:
  The more unequal a society is currently, the greater the chance that the children will be stuck in the same sphere. This is because wealthy families are able to provide things like tutors and extracurricular activities -- and the time to pursue them -- that
  poorer families often cannot.
  Also, education matters a lot more now than it did 100 years ago in terms of getting a good job.
  "The rich can pump a lot more money into their kids' future," said Corak.
  This helps explain why countries like China, India and many South American nations also exhibit relatively little economic mobility.
  Families:
  Having a stable home life is also associated with the ability to climb the economic ladder, said Corak. The United States tends to have higher rates of divorce, single-parent homes, and teenage pregnancy than many other industrialized countries.
  Social policies:
  Countries that redistribute wealth -- through, say, higher taxes on the rich and more spending on the poor -- tend to have greater social mobility, said Francisco Ferreira, an economist at the World Bank.
  This is especially true when it comes to education spending. Critics have long contended that the U.S. system for funding education -- where school funding is largely based on property taxes -- perpetuates inequality far more so than a system that taxes the whole country for schools, then redistributes that money to the districts that are most needy
  It's clear that Americans still believe that America has exceptional mobility, and that's not true," said Long. He calling it "vexing" that "lots of people could be systematically mistaken about verifiable, factual information."
  http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/09/news/economy/america-economic-mobility/
  　
  　
  　
• Al Bundy

  isadore;1587658 wrote:The American Dream is supposed to mean that through hard work and perseverance, even the poorest people can make it to middle class or above.　

  That dream is still possible, and you have been provided with many examples of it throughout this thread.

  isadore;1587658 wrote: It's easier to rise above the class you're born into in countries like Japan, Germany, Australia, and the Scandinavian nations, according to research from University of Ottawa economist and current Russell Sage Foundation Fellow Miles Corak.

  If it is so much better for poor people in those countries, why don't you see our poor going to those countries like you see the poor from other countries coming here?
  
  　
  　
• isadore

  Al Bundy;1587668 wrote:That dream is still possible, and you have been provided with many examples of it throughout this thread. If it is so much better for poor people in those countries, why don't you see our poor going to those countries like you see the poor from other countries coming here?
  
  　
  　

  Gosh a ruddies a few cherry picked cases, most of which were not applicable to the situation of the real poor in this country. American poor stay here, because they are Americans as much if not more than the I got mine, screw you folks. They hope that America will in the future live up to the description land of opportunity.
• QuakerOats

  ^^^ Fail -- again. You need to do only one thing, and that is look at who is leading this country. When you have failed leadership, you will get ample amounts of failure from the masses. obama has done absolutely zero to lift up anyone, especially the poor. He is an abject failure, and has given NO ONE any hope - period!
  
  
  Read it and weep.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Miles Oak is a moron. The United States has a lot of problems, but upwards mobility isn't one of them. Japan in particular has a serious problem with this. They are not only working on 1 generation of living in stagflation, but working on the 2nd. Japan is a mess.