I work with this guy who ...

[PrincessPerky]

While I enjoy a good debate, it is hard to avoid falling into the thought that you can change the person you are debating with. While you might say something to make him think once or twice, you are not likely to change a libertarian into a communist nor vice versa. So long as you keep that in mind, debate can be fun.

I always tell my kids if you find yourself repeating old arguments you need to stop for a break. "is too" is a waste of time, no matter how you dress it up, if you are repeating you are done for the time being.

Anyway, if the debate is fun for you, stretches your mind, then who cares if he never changes.

[elessar78]

Individual examples do not prove a rule.

I would argue that the reason that America has such a wealth disparity is not because the poor aren't getting a fair shake, but for two other reasons:

1) Cultural trends that cause the "poor" to spend themselves into true poverty buying things they don't need
2) Our advanced economy, the largest in the world, provides more opportunities for meritocratic advance into the category of ultrarich.

There's a lot of truth in these two statements.

There are rules for taking care of your money, which I think the rich and upwardly mobile understand and utilize. I think the concept that "hard work" is all you need to become rich is misleading. As someone pointed out, a lot of people work hard. The difference is how much control you have over what you make (and how much you spend).

I grew up in the Washington DC area which, arguably, is a pretty wealthy area. Recently, moved to an old steel town with a lot of poverty. For work, my wife goes into homes of poor people and notes that they basically have the same material things we do, they take care of multiple pets, and probably eat better than we do. We are comfortably middle class, but if we make way more than they do and they live a similar lifestyle then there's something that doesn't add up.

And it's true that there are more than enough opportunities to earn a living wage or better in this country. The unfortunate thing is that there's a lack of money management knowledge out there to boost people in the next social strata. I don't think it's that people who are poor are necessary lazy, I know a lot of lazy middle class and rich people who know just enough to stay where they are.

It's also not a question of fair. Because most of us have the ability to change our situation. Sometimes, it takes hard decisions to create change.

It's a question of whether or not you have the will power/discipline/courage to change?

[lovcom]

Typical arguement from someone who wants to turn his screw then go home and live high on the hog.

I would tell him that the free market deternmines wages and prices. It is the system that created the most properous country, across the board, in world history.

Those who work harder and smarter are rewarded the most, as it should be.

...UNTIL the government allows MASSVIE amounts of foreigners to either come here and take our IT jobs for a fraction of the pay, OR allows jobs here to go off-shore....

...so you see, the so called free market only works for and within a given area. Going global and open market is great, but not when the spigot is turned on full blast, as was allowed by the Bush administration.

All this free market talk is cr@p when the government allows foreigners to take massive numbers of our jobs...

The Bush admin was in the hip pocket of corporate America, the rich, the captains of industry, board of directors and for this reason, Bush allowed cheap labor in to take the jobs away from highly educated American workers.

Ronald Reagan would NOT be impressed, nor am I (a lifelong republican).

[lovcom]

Well, I happen to agree with your coworker on many of the topics (not inheritance), so I'm probably not the best person to ask, but I don't know if the US is such a shining bastion of upward mobility anymore. Sure, the top earners are, but an interesting study in our morning newspaper -not in english so I cannot post a link, stated that if you were born in the lowest income bracket in the US, you had a 42% chance of staying there.

Compared to Denmark, the highest rated, you only had a 25% chance and Sweden a 26% chance - both countries that, while not socialist, have a great deal of social welfare programs and high tax rates.

I personally think this is due to free university level education more so than anything else, at least that is what I have seen amongst my friends who have moved up the ladder here....

You can't compare the USA with the Nanny states of Denmark and Sweden. Over there you have to try very hard to stay poor because of all the socialistic entitlements. In contrast, the USA has less of those, so again your comparision is unfair.

The reason folks coming out of poor families in the USA are more likely to be poor themselves is NOT a lack of opportunitie or lack of entitlements.

The reason is this:

Mom and dad (if there is a dad) is either on crack, or lazy, an alcoholic, or uneducated, or would rather watch TV then attend night school, or loves to party, or works overtime to keep that gangsta Chrysler 300 with $3,000 spinning wheels, allows their kids to stay up past 11pm on school nights, does not champion their education, nor participates in their children's lives....the list goes on and no....

Democrats, socialists, and liberals love to blame society for the ills of the poor...and at the end of the day, and in most cases, the fault lands squarely on each poor adult person.

[Snodog]

I'm a little surprised at all of those who said they are not in favor of wealth re-distribution. Do you really want a flat tax with no exemptions? That would be devastating to a lot of folks, probably many close friends and relatives of yours.

I wish our income taxes where more progressive. When you take into account all taxes (sales, real estate, ect.) our taxes are quite regressive.

I agree with your friend, the high income individual should pay more and its fair because the rules are the same for every person. Also they gain more from the system and have more to loose if the system crumbles. And i'm not worried about the world falling apart because noone will create jobs anymore if we raise taxes a few percent. Lots of other countries (just as prosperous as US) have higher tax rates and jobs are still created.

The rich paying a little more tax is a small price to pay to avoid another civil war.

Flame away

[jasonnoguchi]

In economics, labor and wages are a function of supply and demand as well. Factories pay low because there are a greater supply of people who can perform that particular job. Yes, unions can create minimum wages but that will cause stress on small medium enterprises which will lower the supply of jobs due to lesser number of companies and bigger companies turning to technology and ultimately, job seekers suffer joblessness for the sake of those few who are still employed. is that what we want? free market is the way to go. If your factory isn't paying well enough, ask him to go look for one that does. If no factories are paying him what he expects, then it is he who has the problem and must upgrade his skills in order to go to a lesser supply labor class.

All in all, let free markets decide the price and everything will work out fine.

[Mjenn]

You can't compare the USA with the Nanny states of Denmark and Sweden. Over there you have to try very hard to stay poor because of all the socialistic entitlements. In contrast, the USA has less of those, so again your comparision is unfair.

The reason folks coming out of poor families in the USA are more likely to be poor themselves is NOT a lack of opportunitie or lack of entitlements.

The reason is this:

Mom and dad (if there is a dad) is either on crack, or lazy, an alcoholic, or uneducated, or would rather watch TV then attend night school, or loves to party, or works overtime to keep that gangsta Chrysler 300 with $3,000 spinning wheels, allows their kids to stay up past 11pm on school nights, does not champion their education, nor participates in their children's lives....the list goes on and no....

Democrats, socialists, and liberals love to blame society for the ills of the poor...and at the end of the day, and in most cases, the fault lands squarely on each poor adult person.

Except I think this statistic shows the opposite - in nanny states where social welfare payments are based on a living standard which includes a TV and daily newspaper - more people are moving upwards and choosing to support themselves - 75 % of the next generation, are in fact deciding not to live off benefits - because the alternative is better.

Which shows that entitlements do not necessarily create lazy attitudes.


I'm sorry but while I know there are a lot of crack addicts out there, I don't think all poor are degenerates or are capable of digging themselves out of their situations on their own.

Minimum wage is low, rent is high - there are little to no margins and times are getting tougher.

Also, let's be careful throwing around words like communist and socialist - I don't consider myself either - and there are plenty of other political models around the world that don't fall squarely into either category which provide health care, welfare, parental leave benefits and other subsidies for the population at large and manage to be the home of many successful global companies.

[Broken Arrow]

It is much more efficient to change your own world than to demand that the world change to suit your needs.

As a general policy, I agree with this.

I often find the exercise of "debating" to be... unproductive.

Not so much that I don't think I can't learn something from it. But then, you can learn something from almost anything if you really try.

I think the trouble I find is that a lot of people who wants to debate me is that they don't seem interested in learning. They just want to hang on to their side of the opinions for all it's worth, even when I show them to be incorrect. (If they are correct, I don't mind accepting it. But then, I also don't care for debating.)

Some will say, "But that's the point of debating." Maybe so, but if that's the case, then I find the very exercise itself to be unproductive. After all, when it's all said and done, what will you have accomplished?

Yes, there are times when debating is appropriate and even necessary, but not most of the time. Most of the time, I find that it is best to stick with the policy of keeping an open mind as much as possible, listen as much as possible, and learn as much as possible.

We should not be defined by what we think. We should be defined by how willing we are to think.

And if anyone disagrees with that, I'm ready to debate this for all I'm worth. Just kidding! But seriously, were I in the OP's shoes, I would basically ignore him. The way I look at it is that, regardless of the outcome, it still doesn't change the amount of my pay.

[feh]

He likes to debate to pass the time on our boring job. That part is ok. The part that isn't is I feel he is wrong but I am new to debating my opinions and am not so good at it. So if I throw his statement out there maybe you guys can help me set him strait?? (or set me strait whichever??)

There is no right or wrong. There is only your opinion.

[thekid]

There is only your opinion.

Well, that's a narrow minded viewpoint if I ever saw one.

[syracusa]

I'm a little surprised at all of those who said they are not in favor of wealth re-distribution. Do you really want a flat tax with no exemptions? That would be devastating to a lot of folks, probably many close friends and relatives of yours.

I wish our income taxes where more progressive. When you take into account all taxes (sales, real estate, ect.) our taxes are quite regressive.

I agree with your friend, the high income individual should pay more and its fair because the rules are the same for every person. Also they gain more from the system and have more to loose if the system crumbles. And i'm not worried about the world falling apart because noone will create jobs anymore if we raise taxes a few percent. Lots of other countries (just as prosperous as US) have higher tax rates and jobs are still created.

The rich paying a little more tax is a small price to pay to avoid another civil war.

Flame away

Dr. Seuss said..."You can't teach a sneech".
And you can't.

[highsavings]

Proof or link showing this is true?

I am considered 'rich' for my age and in favor of a progressive tax system.

I can't find the source where I read this. But if you name people who came from old money, I can give you 10x more people who are new money. You really think the majority of wealthy people got their money from relatives?

Easy example is the group of celebrities out there. It is easy to say the majority of celebrities did not get their wealth from their family.

[Rayl]

If you do a little calculating based on inflation over the past 40 years, the cost of goods and services has gone up an average of 1800 percent, while most salaries have only increased 500 percent. If salaries went up at the same rate as the cost of goods and services the MINIMUM wage would be approximately $40 an hour. The thing is, nothing would change. Those earning minimum wage would still be at the bottom of the social ladder and be considered poor.

[highsavings]

Those earning minimum wage would still be at the bottom of the social ladder and be considered poor.

Good point.

[lovcom]

Except I think this statistic shows the opposite - in nanny states where social welfare payments are based on a living standard which includes a TV and daily newspaper - more people are moving upwards and choosing to support themselves - 75 % of the next generation, are in fact deciding not to live off benefits - because the alternative is better.

Which shows that entitlements do not necessarily create lazy attitudes.


I'm sorry but while I know there are a lot of crack addicts out there, I don't think all poor are degenerates or are capable of digging themselves out of their situations on their own.

Minimum wage is low, rent is high - there are little to no margins and times are getting tougher.

Also, let's be careful throwing around words like communist and socialist - I don't consider myself either - and there are plenty of other political models around the world that don't fall squarely into either category which provide health care, welfare, parental leave benefits and other subsidies for the population at large and manage to be the home of many successful global companies.

Actually the reverse is true. For example, the USA has the most productive workers in the world, even more so then Japan and Germany, and yet has less entitlelements then those countries. The more entitlements the less productive a population is.

The error Europeans make is that they refuse to blame the individual for their ills...they will always point a finger at society, and this is dead wrong and this actually makes matters worse because it demeans people, treating them like children and with no respect.

Don't give the fish away....better to teach a poor person how to fish so he can feed himself and have self-respect.