[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

How to tell if you're a conservative:

#1. You've got at least 5 different SMACKDOWN!!! images bookmarked, ready for quick rollout whenever you need to declare an argument won.

And what do they award debate winners in Calgary?

A frozen beaver?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by mojo2

And what do they award debate winners in Calgary?

A frozen beaver?

It's rare that I've seen a SMACKDOWN!!! awarded for actually winning a debate. Usually just for wanting to believe the debate has been won.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Elementary school must be quite a life.

Smackdown is more the province of the WWF/WWE crowd, which I must say I identify more with than the spacey and somewhat immature touchstones held so dearly by so many here. You're a fan of these aren't you, Pendergast?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

It's rare that I've seen a SMACKDOWN!!! awarded for actually winning a debate. Usually just for wanting to believe the debate has been won.

I was wondering if you'd catch that!

But when DO they award frozen beavers? For what accomplishment?

[Ghoser777]

I prefer my beavers above the freezing point, thank you.

[brassplayersrock²]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

In the meantime, please avoid Toyota dealerships, coffee shops, and musical instruments..

Alex

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by loki74

You, my friend, are completely ridiculous, or tragically misinformed.

I'm not about to say that all cases of "rich" people are the result of hard work, but believe you me, that is frequently the case.

So, if I point out somebody who works, say, 70 hours a week, would you bet that he is rich? Because if not, we can fairly definitively say that hard work does not actually make you rich.

[thunderous_funker]

Ruthlessness, greed and unscrupulous behavior are more commonly rewarded with wealth than hard work. That is another pitfall of trying to apply Darwinian analogies to economics. Economic "natural selection" doesn't necessarily select for traits that are advantageous to society at large. In fact, quite the opposite.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

So, if I point out somebody who works, say, 70 hours a week, would you bet that he is rich? Because if not, we can fairly definitively say that hard work does not actually make you rich.

One of the reasons they label liberals in this fashion is because liberals don't hold the black and white view of the world like they apparently have. For example, from their perspective if you're rich its because you deserve it and you've worked hard, if you're poor its because your lazy and deserve it--there are absolutely no other factors.

Rich people who are lazy and poor people who work hard don't fit into the equation and their existence is ignored completely.

It's as if they stopped thinking after Sunday school in the 4th grade. Just before the part where the bible states "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

So, if I point out somebody who works, say, 70 hours a week, would you bet that he is rich? Because if not, we can fairly definitively say that hard work does not actually make you rich.

Rich by whose standards? International? You bet!!! Poor in this country is two cars, a refrigerator, microwave, cable television, at least 500 sq ft of roof over your head, and at least one gaming system. Most work as hard as they feel they need to.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Rich by whose standards? International? You bet!!! Poor in this country is two cars, a refrigerator, microwave, cable television, at least 500 sq ft of roof over your head, and at least one gaming system. Most work as hard as they feel they need to.

Wait, so you're going by international standards, but then assuming it's somebody in this country we're talking about who works 70 hours? That seems pretty weighted.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Rich by whose standards? International? You bet!!! Poor in this country is two cars, a refrigerator, microwave, cable television, at least 500 sq ft of roof over your head, and at least one gaming system. Most work as hard as they feel they need to.

Congratulations on posting the most ignorant thing I've read in months. You obviously have absolutely no freaking clue about how much very real poverty exists in this country.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You've long been posting the kind of ridiculous rubbish that could only exist in a total vacuum of information.

[Chuckit]

Yeah, there's that too. It sounds like what he was describing is the middle class.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

Ruthlessness, greed and unscrupulous behavior are more commonly rewarded with wealth than hard work. That is another pitfall of trying to apply Darwinian analogies to economics. Economic "natural selection" doesn't necessarily select for traits that are advantageous to society at large. In fact, quite the opposite.

And that, in a nutshell, is exactly why "Social Darwinism" is based on a profound and complete misunderstanding of Darwin's theories.

[Spliffdaddy]

Let me fully explain my 3-statement summary of liberals.

Statements #2 & #3 deal with people and money.

Lifelong poverty is the result of making bad financial decisions - and nothing else.

Not that it matters whether a person is rich or poor. The value of a life, along with its happiness, are not measured in currency. Too many folks equate wealth with happiness, and lack of wealth with unhappiness. Neither have any basis in fact. Neither are related in any way whatsoever.

All liberals have the mindset that wealth and happiness are related.

Statement #1 mentions the use of the "ignore list".

All liberals feel compelled to punish those with a viewpoint dissimilar to their own.

It isn't enough to merely 'ignore' the other viewpoint - it must also be punished. To a liberal, it would serve no purpose to silently ignore the opposing viewpoint. Therefore, the fact that they are being ignored must (at minimum) be made public. Thus, they will post a statement like, "I'm adding you to my ignore list", or "Welcome to my ignore list". It's all the 'power' they have to retaliate. Trust me, if a liberal could click on an icon by your username - and cause you bodily injury - they would wear out their mouse clicking that damned icon.

The most humorous part of the whole 'ignore list' is the fact that liberals are punishing themselves by using it. They don't actually ignore you - the goal is punishment, remember. Instead, they must thereafter click every post made by every member on their ignore list - so they can read it.

When I say things about liberals that sound 'simple', it's only because I put a lot of thought into summarizing their behavior in a clear concise manner. It's amazing that I have such talent, really. Hell, it's amazing that anybody has such profound talent.

Liberals, I'm not just one step ahead of you - I knew what you were thinking before most of you were born.

Carry on, grasshoppers.

[Chuckit]

Blah, your trolling is weak. This turned out to be somewhat of an interesting conversation, so you have to go and try to reboot the flamebait instead of continuing the discussion.

[Spliffdaddy]

Seems that it hit pretty close to home, huh?

Hey, just add me to your ignore list !

[Chuckit]

Why would I want to do that?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

One of the reasons they label liberals in this fashion is because liberals don't hold the black and white view of the world like they apparently have.

Right, like believing that everyone who is rich got that way via luck isnt a black and white worldview.

Originally Posted by Zeeb

For example, from their perspective if you're rich its because you deserve it and you've worked hard,

From most consevative's perspective, if you're rich- it's none of any busy-body, other-people's-money-grubbing liberal's friggen business.


If liberals ever spent even half the time on something actually useful as they do worring about what money other people have, how they got it and how their beloved nanny-state can lay greedy hands on it, they'd figure out how to support themselves.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Right, like believing that everyone who is rich got that way via luck isnt a black and white worldview.

I didn't really agree with most of Zeeb's post, but neither he nor I said that.

[Spliff]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

how they got it and how their beloved nanny-state can lay greedy hands on it, they'd figure out how to support themselves.

Yes, America is such a nanny-state.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

So, if I point out somebody who works, say, 70 hours a week, would you bet that he is rich? Because if not, we can fairly definitively say that hard work does not actually make you rich.

Nope... if he's not rich we can fairly definitively say that his hard work does not actually make him rich. And this could be for a myriad of reasons... say he has a low paying, dead-end, job, a boss who's not following laws and guidelines regarding worker pay/treatment, or maybe its his own fault.

At any rate, it is a fair assumption that hard work does not pay off right away... the way "luck" does. If that guy is really doing good work and making efforts to move up, he will likely get a raise or a promotion.

Regardless--you can completely forget everything I just said and safely know that your argument is entirely misplaced and grossly off target. Let's observe:

1) You make a sweeping generalization. The point: all rich people got there by luck
2) I discounted this by pointing out a specific instance where your generalization failed. The point: not all rich people got there by luck--I know of this one...
3) You have tried to discount my specific case by pointing out another specific case, never mind that neither of these cases are mutually exclusive. The point: some people work hard and don't get rich.

So yes, perhaps some people work hard and don't get rich, but that does not mean that all rich people got there by luck.

Now I feel it is only fair to point out that I did make some misplaced generalizations in my response, specifically the last sentence ("...pays off damn well"). It would have been more accurate and in line with my point to add to the end of this statement "for my father." However, this does not discount, and indeed is beside, the main point I was trying to make: not ALL wealthy people got there on luck, they way you seem to believe. If this generalization is what you were rebutting to, I must say your point is well founded, although it only adresses the most insignificant part of my post.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by loki74

So yes, it is true. Having millionares for parents pays off, and so does winning the lottery. But don't--don't--even try to suggest that all people who are well-to-do (or even filthy rich) got there on sheer luck. If you do, I cannot tell you how wrong you are. Hard work pays off too, and it pays off damn well.

How hard did you work to be born into those circumstances?

Oh, right, you didn't.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Wait, so you're going by international standards, but then assuming it's somebody in this country we're talking about who works 70 hours? That seems pretty weighted.

My point was that I believe our society has gotten a little drunk on entitlement in this country. There seems to be a hidden distaste for wealth or the wealthy in particular. Who is employing these folks working 70 hours a week, poor people? Who is donating most to charity, the poor? You seem to be advocating some "roll over and play dead" attitude here because you can't control your fate.

Those of you crying about how wealth is handed to the wealthy, tell ya what;

you can work approximately 45 hours a week for Burlington Northern as a brakeman and make near $95k a year. How about dispatch for Union Pacific? $60k a year. Not very stimulating work, but very good income. No college degree necessary for either and you'd be wealthy by anyone's standards. Don't want to do it? Well, then I guess we're back to square one.

Back in my "poverty days" I worked two jobs, one was at Swisher. These are the folks that change urinal filters and provide hand soap dispensers, bathroom air fresheners, and clean toilets. The guy who ran the local office here (easily three figure income) said in many cases in society you simply have to be willing to do what others aren't. He saw that as opportunity when he was poor, he is now rich. He worked his ass off for wealth.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

Congratulations on posting the most ignorant thing I've read in months. You obviously have absolutely no freaking clue about how much very real poverty exists in this country.

I'm not only aware of it Einstein, I've lived it. Before you go and tell me what I'm ignorant of how about getting outside your gated community some time to understand more about the conditions that create poverty? You're like one of these morons that tout how compassionate they were by getting together with their frat buddies to sleep in a cardboard box on campus for one night to understand how the other half lives.

What would you expect me to say, hard work will get you nowhere? This country sucks, may as well join the welfare program? What does that solve anyway? My wife and I worked less, we earned less. We're working more now, we're earning more now. As we began to earn more, we became more protective of our assets and thought of ways to save more. As we began to save more, we began to take calculated risks with our careers. We're now in a position of being debt free and upper-middle by US standards. Ignorance is espousing BS w/o anything to quantify your gripe. Lets look at those standards;

- According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat. These folks need help. We have the open door mission, Francis House, and food pantries throughout our State including a pantry at our Church which is standard practice throughout Baptist and Pentacostal Churches, to ensure people do not go without food. If you have no food, you're not trying.

- Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels.

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

- Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

- Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

- The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

- Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

- Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

I don't pretend to suggest that true poverty is a myth, but I would like to ensure this thread keeps poverty in perspective. Drug addiction, domestic violence, and mental illness are the top three reasons for homelessness and programs abound for each case. I'm thinking of a local shelter that would go into the park downtown to find the homeless when the weather forecast was grim. You might be surprised how many would not get into the van. How could this be? Is it possible there are those who do not want your help? Is it possible there are those who will do nothing to help themselves? Absolutely!!! Is there true poverty in the US? Absolutely. Are there adequate programs to address each and is it up to the individual to avail themselves of these programs particularly when they are approached by these people? Yep.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You've long been posting the kind of ridiculous rubbish that could only exist in a total vacuum of information.

No, what should surprise you is how dismally little the liberal band-aid social policies have done for true poverty. To understand poverty and to build the attitudes that eliminate it, you'd have to get outside your gated community. If you did, I would not see you defending the defeatist attitude; "hard work will not make you wealthy".

Special education, temporary shelter, counseling, and trade-school have proven to be the most effective means for getting people off of the streets and into productive society, but what do I know about work eh?

For whatever reason, those who work with the poor understand the importance of gainful employment, but it's only the liberal here on MacNN who knows about poverty.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

My point was that I believe our society has gotten a little drunk on entitlement in this country. There seems to be a hidden distaste for wealth or the wealthy in particular. Who is employing these folks working 70 hours a week, poor people? Who is donating most to charity, the poor? You seem to be advocating some "roll over and play dead" attitude here because you can't control your fate.

Those of you crying about how wealth is handed to the wealthy, tell ya what;

you can work approximately 45 hours a week for Burlington Northern as a brakeman and make near $95k a year. How about dispatch for Union Pacific? $60k a year. Not very stimulating work, but very good income. No college degree necessary for either and you'd be wealthy by anyone's standards. Don't want to do it? Well, then I guess we're back to square one.

Back in my "poverty days" I worked two jobs, one was at Swisher. These are the folks that change urinal filters and provide hand soap dispensers, bathroom air fresheners, and clean toilets. The guy who ran the local office here (easily three figure income) said in many cases in society you simply have to be willing to do what others aren't. He saw that as opportunity when he was poor, he is now rich. He worked his ass off for wealth.

I have no distaste for wealth and there are certainly wealthy people who worked hard and deserve it. You sound like you're "well off" and not necessarily wealthy. You clearly didn't just sit around and expect money to come to you without effort and worked hard to get to your position.

However, people come from all different places in life and I question your defination of "poor". For example, a college student from a "well off" or "wealthy" family frequently consider themselves "poor" because they don't have any of their own money. They may look under the coach pillows for pizza or beer money for a few years and this is what many people mean when the reference a time in their lives when they didn't have money. WRONG. Forget the fact that college has been paid for by his or her parents or that Johnny's first job was obtained by his Dad's connections. This is after all how Bush became President right?

What really gets me however is the fact that some of those who are wealthy take such pleasure in looking down at "poor" people and try to do things like suppress minimum wage increases because it might mean the vacation home in Italy might not have a marble floor this year.

As for your assertion that most wealthy people give more to charity than those who are poor--I have to say I laughed at that one. Of course poor people don't give much to charity--they don't have anything to give.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet's efforts and charity are admirable--they are giving away a sizeable portion of their money. Yet many wealthy people and corporations give to charity only to obtain a certain social standing, complicated tax benefits or for publicity. Recently some companies have spent more advertising their charitable contributions than the amount of the charitable contribution itself.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

blah blah blah

I'm a college drop-out with a blue collar job, but thanks for demonstrating your typical bigotry against anyone you disagree with.

Funny how when pushed to it you actually post statistics that counter your previous cavalier dismissal of legitimate poverty in this country. If you posted more of that and less of the knee-jerk partisan clap-trap these boards might be more enjoyable.

And you won't find me defending too many historical attempts at addressing poverty by either liberals or conservatives in this country because the fact is there aren't many highlights. Too many "liberals" just want to be poverty pimps and too many "conservatives" dismiss the problem as imagined or simply the wages of sin.

But i don't blame politicians. They do their job, which is to divide the electorate, preach to their respective choirs and ensure their own well-being by being partisan and divisive. If people actually held their feet to the fire, they'd have to change.

Now back to the regularly scheduled bigotry and stereotyping....

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

How hard did you work to be born into those circumstances?

Oh, right, you didn't.

Touché.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Lifelong poverty is the result of making bad financial decisions - and nothing else.

I'm working on you, my goal is to get you to step outside of the simple-minded generalizations you make and recognize some complexity.

Do you realize what the greatest cause of bankrupcty in America is right now? Health-related incidents and their associated expenses. These can happen to anybody, at anytime. Even with health insurance, there are still deductables to meet, and/or a higher grade of health insurance to pay for.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

How hard did you work to be born into those circumstances?

Oh, right, you didn't.

The whole wealthy parent thing is just a head start. (Sure, you can call it unfair... I just call it life) You think my folks are gonna pay my bills? Buy me a house? Not a chance. Not to mention that wealth does take work to maintain.

But it's not like any of what I just said matters anyway, because you are way off topic. Read the quote again. Did you see me deny that having well-to-do parents means that you will be well-to-do? You'll find I said quite the opposite, in fact.

I have been trying to make the point that there are wealthy people who got there on hard work (or, more sepecifically, that NOT ALL wealthy people got there on luck). Please, tell me, how does pointing out that I "lucked out" (as it were) invalidate that point?

So you see, while you may think your wise-assed sarcasm makes a strong argument, in reality it is nothing but hot air, so long as you fail to address the argument I have presented.

Good job not arguing a thing I said.

[besson3c]

So, does anybody here disagree on the idea that wealth is sometimes due to luck, sometimes due to hard work?

[loki74]

Originally Posted by besson3c

So, does anybody here disagree on the idea that wealth is sometimes due to luck, sometimes due to hard work?

FINALLY. Someone who gets it--all I was trying to do was debunk a generalization... sheesh.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by loki74

1) You make a sweeping generalization. The point: all rich people got there by luck

Please read my posts before replying. You'll avoid wasting your time arguing against things I have specifically said I don't believe are true.

[loki74]

hokay... looks like you did address the generalization. What I get for not reading all of the posts in the thread. You have my apologies.

[analogika]

Love is in the air (daah dah dah daah dah dah)...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

My point was that I believe our society has gotten a little drunk on entitlement in this country. There seems to be a hidden distaste for wealth or the wealthy in particular. Who is employing these folks working 70 hours a week, poor people? Who is donating most to charity, the poor? You seem to be advocating some "roll over and play dead" attitude here because you can't control your fate.

I am not advocating anything. I am merely stating facts. If people want to go on believing that someday their wages will suddenly jump from $30K to $300K, they're welcome to hold that hope. I just mean, I'm not going to hold my breath.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

you can work approximately 45 hours a week for Burlington Northern as a brakeman and make near $95k a year. How about dispatch for Union Pacific? $60k a year. Not very stimulating work, but very good income. No college degree necessary for either and you'd be wealthy by anyone's standards. Don't want to do it? Well, then I guess we're back to square one.

As my observations were about how the real world works, this "you can" is irrelevant. Most rich people did not get rich working as a brakeman. They got rich doing the same kind of work a lot of ordinary schmoes do, but they got luckier.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Back in my "poverty days" I worked two jobs, one was at Swisher. These are the folks that change urinal filters and provide hand soap dispensers, bathroom air fresheners, and clean toilets. The guy who ran the local office here (easily three figure income) said in many cases in society you simply have to be willing to do what others aren't. He saw that as opportunity when he was poor, he is now rich. He worked his ass off for wealth.

Well, golly gee, you found him. I always knew there was such a person somewhere.

That doesn't mean that's how it usually works. I know a guy who does the same thing, but he hasn't hit the jackpot and he's still stuck cleaning our toilets.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by loki74

hokay... looks like you did address the generalization. What I get for not reading all of the posts in the thread. You have my apologies.

Thanks. Sorry if I seemed snippy. I'm in a bad mood because I didn't want to work today and this thread reminded me that I didn't want to work today.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

I'm a college drop-out with a blue collar job, but thanks for demonstrating your typical bigotry against anyone you disagree with.

Yeah, like assuming I'm ignorant to the fact that "real" poverty exists? No thanks necessary.

Funny how when pushed to it you actually post statistics that counter your previous cavalier dismissal of legitimate poverty in this country.

My view was not a "cavalier dismissal of legitimate poverty". My first post was consistent with the spirit of the post I had responded to. With a little less bitterness, you may have realized it was humor. Secondly, my subsequent post encouraged some perspective on the issue because I disagreed with the premise of those claiming rich people hadn't worked hard. I then included statistics that affirmed my initial stance, that we should keep "poverty" in perspective. While there is a legitimate concern, it's not near the scope many would have you believe. In this I find it's more than just politicians "pimpin'" poverty. Again, the statistics were used to put the problem in perspective.

And you won't find me defending too many historical attempts at addressing poverty by either liberals or conservatives in this country because the fact is there aren't many highlights. Too many "liberals" just want to be poverty pimps and too many "conservatives" dismiss the problem as imagined or simply the wages of sin.

Would you deny that there are under-achievers and over-achievers in society?

But i don't blame politicians. They do their job, which is to divide the electorate, preach to their respective choirs and ensure their own well-being by being partisan and divisive. If people actually held their feet to the fire, they'd have to change.

While I'm inclined to agree with your view on politicians, I'd say they're doing a pretty damned effective job here in the US considering the statistics I've cited for you earlier.

Now back to the regularly scheduled bigotry and stereotyping....

Bigotry? What exactly are you assuming? Did someone detail a racial connection to poverty? I think some introspect might be in order my fellow college dropout. Now about stereotyping, poverty does have some predictable qualities. It's important to understand what those qualities are without having to concern yourself with being accused of stereotyping. Though I realize, there are people who complain about the problem and there are those that lead the charge in resolving it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I am not advocating anything. I am merely stating facts.

What facts have you stated? How about producing something that can affirm this "fact". I'm calling BS.

If people want to go on believing that someday their wages will suddenly jump from $30K to $300K, they're welcome to hold that hope. I just mean, I'm not going to hold my breath.

At least most could probably agree with you that hope alone is not the key to success.

As my observations were about how the real world works, this "you can" is irrelevant. Most rich people did not get rich working as a brakeman. They got rich doing the same kind of work a lot of ordinary schmoes do, but they got luckier.

This sounds completely unfounded. Do you have anything to suggest this is more than just bitterness?

Well, golly gee, you found him. I always knew there was such a person somewhere.

That's exactly what I thought when it seemed you were going to give us the story of the poor guy working 70 hours a week. Let's run some crude math on your example. Let's say he's working 70 hours/week @ BurgerKing earning $7.00/hour. That's 30 hours at time and a half (law) which means he's bringing home approximately $20k a year? That's above the poverty line for a single man. What if he was working 40 hours a week? Well, now we're a little closer to poverty @ $12,376.00 take home.

So... while hard work may not make you rich when working for $7.00/hr @ BurgerKing, it will keep you out of poverty.

That doesn't mean that's how it usually works. I know a guy who does the same thing, but he hasn't hit the jackpot and he's still stuck cleaning our toilets.

Really? Have you asked him if he's working as hard as he wants to? Have you asked him what his goals in life are? Have you asked him if he's unhappy? Are you somehow a better man, more intelligent, more advantaged, and more lucky than he that you're not cleaning the toilets along with him? BTW; I hope you appreciate what he's doing, it's not fun work. He should consider applying for a grant so he can start a small cleaning business and have others clean toilets while he trains more how to clean toilets. Eventually, he'll be golfing on Saturdays and you'll be stuck wishing you were cleaning toilets with him.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

I have no distaste for wealth and there are certainly wealthy people who worked hard and deserve it. You sound like you're "well off" and not necessarily wealthy.

Actually, I'm middle-upper as stated earlier. I work only as hard as I have to and I'm a very happy person. I'm pursuing the option of opening a recording studio in my spare time. We'll see. Wish me luck eh? I have to decide if I have the courage to take this financial risk. Many others have taken financial risks like the one I'm considering and have done well. Others have taken this risk and have had to return to an employer.

You clearly didn't just sit around and expect money to come to you without effort and worked hard to get to your position.

Why thank you. Humping poles for the local telephone company was hard work, but they didn't ask for a college education and they've given my family excellent health benefits, a 401K, discounts on phone, cable, and internet, and have given us a very good life. The job I had at the telemarketing firm while much easier on me physically, did not pay near as well. They had no benefits and no 401K. I decided I was worth more than they were paying and I left that company in search of better opportunity. BTW; two others I was working with at that telemarketing firm did the same thing and they've had equal success. You have to make the decision to choose the situations that are best for you and act on that decision. It's risky, but worthwhile.

However, people come from all different places in life and I question your defination of "poor".

@ 17 my mother died and my father decided he was going to be a parent. I got into some trouble and he grounded me for 3 months. I decided I didn't have to live with him so I moved out. I then moved in with my sister who lived in a home in a poor section of town. We had no television and just her car to get us to and fro, but life was good with her and I certainly never considered myself poor. I then met my girlfriend and we decided to make it on our own. We moved to an even worse neighborhood into a rental house with a stand-up shower, toilet, two burner stove, dorm fridge, two bedrooms, a 1967 Chevy Bel-Air (miss that damn car), and a drumset in the dining room. She became pregnant shortly thereafter. I then dropped out of college to work more because I couldn't afford both school and hospital bills. This rental was very tiny (approximately 400 sq. ft) and had mice scuttling about in the attic. One night at work I received a call at work from my frantic girlfriend (now wife) telling me that the neighbor had run down through our front yard and was firing a gun over a school bus at some people on the other side of the street. I had had enough. It was time to really put forth a concerted effort to remove us from this condition. I worked my ass off and here I am.

For example, a college student from a "well off" or "wealthy" family frequently consider themselves "poor" because they don't have any of their own money. They may look under the coach pillows for pizza or beer money for a few years and this is what many people mean when the reference a time in their lives when they didn't have money. WRONG. Forget the fact that college has been paid for by his or her parents or that Johnny's first job was obtained by his Dad's connections. This is after all how Bush became President right?

I challenge the notion that the Bush family is an adequate example of the demographic for wealth in this country. I disagree. I think this attitude stems from bitterness and is counter-productive to success.

What really gets me however is the fact that some of those who are wealthy take such pleasure in looking down at "poor" people and try to do things like suppress minimum wage increases because it might mean the vacation home in Italy might not have a marble floor this year.

If you want less job availability for the most disadvantaged among us, by all means raise the minimum wage. Those who know the facts, know that raising the minimum wage may make you feel better, it has absolutely no such positive effect on poverty. Statistics show that few entering the workforce at the minimum wage stay there for long. Nearly two-thirds get a raise within 1-12 months. After improving their skills and establishing their value, these employees receive raises at a rate six times larger than everyone else. Greenspan for example, argued that this does leave us with a small group of the least skilled, who may remain at a minimum wage salary for extended periods and that while this might seem to be an effective policy for them unfortunately, they are actually the people most likely to lose their jobs following a wage increase.

As for your assertion that most wealthy people give more to charity than those who are poor--I have to say I laughed at that one. Of course poor people don't give much to charity--they don't have anything to give.

I'm glad you find common sense so funny. Just making sure we're keeping our distaste for the wealthy in check here.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet's efforts and charity are admirable--they are giving away a sizeable portion of their money. Yet many wealthy people and corporations give to charity only to obtain a certain social standing, complicated tax benefits or for publicity. Recently some companies have spent more advertising their charitable contributions than the amount of the charitable contribution itself.

I personally don't care why one gives. There are many vehicles for giving and many reasons why one would give and I'm glad they do regardless of their intent.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

What facts have you stated? How about producing something that can affirm this "fact". I'm calling BS.

Right-o. Just as soon as you produce something to affirm the fact that most people making, say, $200K+ have worked on a railroad. Otherwise, I'm just going to stick to my claim that that ain't so.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This sounds completely unfounded. Do you have anything to suggest this is more than just bitterness?

Knowing the life stories of rich people? Knowing several rich people myself and knowing what they have done? In general, yes, they worked hard. So have many other people, and they didn't get rich. Hence, hard work ≠ rich.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

That's exactly what I thought when it seemed you were going to give us the story of the poor guy working 70 hours a week. Let's run some crude math on your example. Let's say he's working 70 hours/week @ BurgerKing earning $7.00/hour. That's 30 hours at time and a half (law) which means he's bringing home approximately $20k a year? That's above the poverty line for a single man. What if he was working 40 hours a week? Well, now we're a little closer to poverty @ $12,376.00 take home.

So... while hard work may not make you rich when working for $7.00/hr @ BurgerKing, it will keep you out of poverty.

OK. Do you have a relevant point? (And $20K is well below poverty in many places for a family of five, to my knowledge.)

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Really? Have you asked him if he's working as hard as he wants to? Have you asked him what his goals in life are? Have you asked him if he's unhappy? Are you somehow a better man, more intelligent, more advantaged, and more lucky than he that you're not cleaning the toilets along with him?

I'm not sure why you're asking me this. You're the one trying to say that makes more money = more 1337.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

BTW; I hope you appreciate what he's doing, it's not fun work.

I certainly do. He's a cool guy.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

He should consider applying for a grant so he can start a small cleaning business and have others clean toilets while he trains more how to clean toilets. Eventually, he'll be golfing on Saturdays and you'll be stuck wishing you were cleaning toilets with him.

And while we're living in fantasy-land, I should snap my fingers and you'll be my butler.

Hey, you're not here! I guess maybe sometimes things don't go as smoothly as they sound when you describe them.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

@ 17 my mother died and my father decided he was going to be a parent. I got into some trouble and he grounded me for 3 months. I decided I didn't have to live with him so I moved out. I then moved in with my sister who lived in a home in a poor section of town. We had no television and just her car to get us to and fro, but life was good with her and I certainly never considered myself poor. I then met my girlfriend and we decided to make it on our own. We moved to an even worse neighborhood into a rental house with a stand-up shower, toilet, two burner stove, dorm fridge, two bedrooms, a 1967 Chevy Bel-Air (miss that damn car), and a drumset in the dining room. She became pregnant shortly thereafter. I then dropped out of college to work more because I couldn't afford both school and hospital bills. This rental was very tiny (approximately 400 sq. ft) and had mice scuttling about in the attic. One night at work I received a call at work from my frantic girlfriend (now wife) telling me that the neighbor had run down through our front yard and was firing a gun over a school bus at some people on the other side of the street. I had had enough. It was time to really put forth a concerted effort to remove us from this condition. I worked my ass off and here I am.

Well you certainly weren't born with a silver spoon in your mouth and once again it sounds like you did the absolute best with the situation you found yourself in. I certainly respect that-- and wish you good luck by the way with the studio you plan to open. I have a feeling it will be a success judging by the fact that you seem to have a good business sense and have made some good choices in the past.

I'm quite sensitive about this whole discussion from my own personal experience but I found a different path and attached myself to a different philosophy I guess. I didn't even have plumbing or phone service in my family's house growing up and it was like living in a camp or something. One would look at our situation back then and probably label us "white trash" --and plenty of people did. My Dad worked so hard that his health failed him and eventually he couldn't work anymore. (the hard work most certainly did not make him rich) It was at this point that the life insurance company simply cancelled the policy she had on my father. She called them up and just got the normal impenetrable bureaucratic response. She then called Senator Carl Levin's office out of frustration and guess what--he returned the call himself. He then called New York Life and amazingly the policy was reinstated with an apology letter from the president of that company at the time. Amazing what a call from a senator can do eh?

The best thing was that this story never made the news, nor were there any photos taken and Mr. Levin never got or wanted to benefit from it politically. Carl Levin is a democrat and needless to say the whole experience cast an impression on me. I know democrats and the party in general are far from perfect and can be corrupt and elitist themselves but I feel that a democratic or "liberal" social policy tends to produce the best result. I never could have gone to college without federal grants and student loans but Republicans tend to be against programs like that. "Why should I pay for some lazy white trash kid's education?" is the general consensus among them. Well, because if I hadn't had an education I might be some nasty and poor criminal hellbent on destroying society.

[Spliffdaddy]

Who cares how much money somebody makes - or how they make it?

It has not a thing to do with the happiness of the individual

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Who cares how much money somebody makes - or how they make it?

It has not a thing to do with the happiness of the individual

It does to some degree. People are very seldom happy when their kids are starving.

[Spliffdaddy]

There are no starving children in the USA

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

1) you use your ignore list

2) you believe poor people are simply unlucky

3) you believe wealthy people are simply lucky.

So conservatives have a superiority complex?

This is just silly. You claim I'm liberal but I say "no" to all three. There are even conservatives on here who use the ignore list.

Back under the bridge before you scare the children.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

There are no starving children in the USA

You've personally checked each child?

[Spliffdaddy]

Yep. They're all fat, best I can tell.

besides, the US hasn't had any reported starvation deaths in a looooong time.


Some of the happiest people I ever met were broke as hell.

Most of the wealthiest folks are miserable.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by loki74

The whole wealthy parent thing is just a head start. (Sure, you can call it unfair... I just call it life)

Oh, I bet you do.

Of course you'd downplay the 'role' of hand-me-down wealth, since it makes a complete and total mockery of the assertion that sucess and prosperity in life are largely the result of 'hard work' and 'dedication'.

Of all the people I know, only 1 made it from 'nowhere' to a respectable life (yes, through hard work and dedication), all the others who started out 'poor', are either still poor, in prison or dead.

Of all the ones that got a head start in life, just about everybody went through college, and is now either a doctor, a lawyer or some kind of professional no matter how much they screwed up during their adolescence (and believe me, they fu<ked up way more times than those who are now far less well off)

Originally Posted by loki74

But it's not like any of what I just said matters anyway, because you are way off topic.

Yeah, sure.

Originally Posted by loki74

Please, tell me, how does pointing out that I "lucked out" (as it were) invalidate that point?

It doesn't 'invalidate your point', it just shows that you are a complete and total hypocrite, if you believe that you can judge other people own their merit, who didn't get the same 'head start' you did.

Yes, a person's situation in life isn't wholly dependent on luck, – but more often than not, on where a person started out in life. I've seen it happen way too often for anybody to argue the opposite. Exceptions only enforcing the rule.

Originally Posted by loki74

So you see, while you may think your wise-assed sarcasm makes a strong argument, in reality it is nothing but hot air, so long as you fail to address the argument I have presented.

Errr, you didn't present any 'argument' at all. As a matter of fact, the only place where anybody claimed that wealth was merely the result of luck was in Spliffdud's flame-bait/strawman opening statement.

I certainly don't believe so. I have family members who went from basically having nothing (after WW II) to being one of the wealthiest people in town, – all through hard work, dedication with very little to no luck involved.

The problem is, and this is the part that most conservatives can't seem to be able to grasp, the reverse isn't true at all. Being lazy, stupid and generally a complete and total asshat doesn't necessarily make you poor/not well off.

Thanks to capitalism, maintaining wealth is just about one of the easiest things to do in this day and age (Paris Hilton *cough*…), and, as 'thunderous_funker' so eloquently put it, "ruthlessness, greed and unscrupulous behavior are more commonly rewarded with wealth than hard work"

Amen.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Yep. They're all fat, best I can tell.

besides, the US hasn't had any reported starvation deaths in a looooong time.


Some of the happiest people I ever met were broke as hell.

Most of the wealthiest folks are miserable.

How many of those wealthy folks you know of are Conservative?

If I could figure out how to use the smiley face with the sunglasses on, I would. Yes, that's right... I'd sunglasses your ass.