Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Time to on government assistanceFollow

#102 Aug 06 2014 at 7:18 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Samira wrote:
There is absolutely such a thing as idle money.
But it's mostly owned by white male Christians, so it can only be a good thing.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#103 Aug 06 2014 at 7:22 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
gbaji wrote:

I agree with the whole "healthy middle class" bit.

'bit'?

It's more than a bit. It's like most of it.

When Samira chooses to enlighten you really shouldn't attempt to minimize her offerings. Smiley: eek

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#104 Aug 06 2014 at 7:31 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts
It's just harder to see how the interest the banker earned off lending money to people is a "contribution"

What is hard to see is how it's a contribution for someone to take that money and pay others for labor, but at a rate low enough that they profit. Profit is what's hard to see as a "contribution" Labor is obviously a contribution. The guy who digs a path and lays asphalt for a road has an obvious contribution to society. The guy who happened to have a pile of money and paid him to do that so his pile could get larger has none. Let's be clear, it *absolutely* is "happened to have". Wealth isn't derived from making good decisions in capitalism, it's derived from privilege and luck. Not arguable.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#105 Aug 06 2014 at 9:05 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,924 posts
And exploiting others, of course. For example, being the largest employer in the country isn't exactly contributing to society if you don't pay livable wages but hoard money for yourself, your family and a board of directors.The "trickle-down" pretty much uses up all its influence by the investor stage, long before it gets to the worker.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#107 Aug 06 2014 at 10:17 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,552 posts
gbaji wrote:
Contribution and virtue (a better word for what you seem to be describing might be "charity") are not the same thing.


What you call charity I call being a decent human being. Also, being a decent human being can lead to more of a contribution to society.

I am just saying that earning gobs of cash is less of a contribution then some might think.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#108 Aug 06 2014 at 10:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,552 posts
freedomfried wrote:
The guys who dig ditches are worthless without someone paying them to dig.


Unless that ditch is a sewage ditch that leads to less sickness, and a cleaner lifestyle for others.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#109 Aug 06 2014 at 10:24 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,952 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
It's just harder to see how the interest the banker earned off lending money to people is a "contribution"

What is hard to see is how it's a contribution for someone to take that money and pay others for labor, but at a rate low enough that they profit. Profit is what's hard to see as a "contribution" Labor is obviously a contribution. The guy who digs a path and lays asphalt for a road has an obvious contribution to society. The guy who happened to have a pile of money and paid him to do that so his pile could get larger has none. Let's be clear, it *absolutely* is "happened to have". Wealth isn't derived from making good decisions in capitalism, it's derived from privilege and luck. Not arguable.


There is value created by providing managerial capital. There is little value created by capital accumulated leverage. Unfortunately it's difficult to seperate the incentive structures, in many cases.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#112 Aug 06 2014 at 12:50 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,924 posts
With a stance like this it's rather odd that you think so poorly of New York, arguably the financial capital of the world. You should be paving Wall Street in jizz.

Haha, no, not odd at all. This kind of inconsistency and mental contortion is about par for your whacked-out arguments.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#113 Aug 06 2014 at 12:58 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
freedomfried wrote:

Earning gobs of cash.....I stopped reading after this. Why bother you're obviously **** people have more and make more than you and no matter what they do they'll always the target of your jealousy and contempt.


You have jealousy and contempt for government. I think your contempt is much more detrimental to our society.

Capitalism without regulation won't sustain a productive society. Ask Argentina how it's going for them.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#114 Aug 06 2014 at 2:16 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts
With a stance like this it's rather odd that you think so poorly of New York, arguably the financial capital of the world.

Please. I can hear London laughing from here. Did you mean "of the United States"?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#115 Aug 06 2014 at 2:36 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,552 posts
freedomfried wrote:
Earning gobs of cash.....I stopped reading after this. Why bother you're obviously **** people have more and make more than you and no matter what they do they'll always the target of your jealousy and contempt.


Hmm, quite the uninformed leap in logic, since I don't hold people in contempt based on their earnings. I base that type of thing on the actions of a person, but nice effort.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#116 Aug 06 2014 at 2:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
**** is banned?

Haha... Wow, ok it's probably time to start finding new digs. We're censoring words that probably don't even break the PG mark. Ridiculous.

Edited, Aug 6th 2014 3:40pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#117 Aug 06 2014 at 2:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,552 posts
A lot of talk of banned words today, p i s s e d ****
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#118 Aug 06 2014 at 3:04 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,924 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
With a stance like this it's rather odd that you think so poorly of New York, arguably the financial capital of the world.

Please. I can hear London laughing from here. Did you mean "of the United States"?

Well, there were some articles recently about New York surpassing London in importance, but that may very well have come from the Grey Lady. Still, given Wall Street's importance domestically, he decries the very pillar that his vaunted American capitalism sits.

Why do you hate America so, freedomfried?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#119 Aug 06 2014 at 4:38 PM Rating: Default
**
562 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
It's just harder to see how the interest the banker earned off lending money to people is a "contribution"

What is hard to see is how it's a contribution for someone to take that money and pay others for labor, but at a rate low enough that they profit. Profit is what's hard to see as a "contribution" Labor is obviously a contribution. The guy who digs a path and lays asphalt for a road has an obvious contribution to society. The guy who happened to have a pile of money and paid him to do that so his pile could get larger has none. Let's be clear, it *absolutely* is "happened to have". Wealth isn't derived from making good decisions in capitalism, it's derived from privilege and luck. Not arguable.


I am confused. So when I make bad decisions and lose all that I saved up it is just bad luck and lack of privilege? Good to know.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#120 Aug 06 2014 at 4:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,223 posts
Jophiel wrote:
**** is banned?

Haha... Wow, ok it's probably time to start finding new digs. We're censoring words that probably don't even break the PG mark. Ridiculous.

Edited, Aug 6th 2014 3:40pm by Jophiel



But I was wearing Victorian clothes when I typed "sex". I don't understand what's needed here. A burqa, maybe?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#121 Aug 06 2014 at 4:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
**** SEX ****
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#122 Aug 06 2014 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
RUMP HUMPING MOUTH DONGS
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#123 Aug 06 2014 at 4:52 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,924 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
It's just harder to see how the interest the banker earned off lending money to people is a "contribution"

What is hard to see is how it's a contribution for someone to take that money and pay others for labor, but at a rate low enough that they profit. Profit is what's hard to see as a "contribution" Labor is obviously a contribution. The guy who digs a path and lays asphalt for a road has an obvious contribution to society. The guy who happened to have a pile of money and paid him to do that so his pile could get larger has none. Let's be clear, it *absolutely* is "happened to have". Wealth isn't derived from making good decisions in capitalism, it's derived from privilege and luck. Not arguable.


I am confused. So when I make bad decisions and lose all that I saved up it is just bad luck and lack of privilege? Good to know.

Right, because if you're lucky enough to be privileged it won't matter, you still have a prestigious family to fallback on. You could even go on to become president.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#124 Aug 06 2014 at 5:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except the question was about "contribution to society". Society means the collection of all the people. So it's not about obtaining wealth. It's about finding some objective measurement of how much "society" values what you do (ie: your contributions). Looking at how much people are willing to freely pay in return for what you do is a great way to do this.
Any mother in the world could give you a categorical reason as to why this doesn't make an ounce of sense. Smiley: rolleyes


Since I have no idea what you're talking about, how about *you* tell me why you think this doesn't make an ounce of sense. I've never said that earnings is the *only* measure of contribution. Just that it's a good starting point to use. While not all contributions to society can be measured by earnings, most earnings do reflect relative contribution to society. I'm not sure how a mother's perspective changes that fact.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
That's great, but it has nothing to do with how society values your contributions. Contributions are about what you do for the other members of the society you live in. Now, if society actually values how much time you spend with your own family, then other members of that society would pay you to spend time with your own family, and we could measure that as I've been arguing. But we don't. So while that benefits *you*, that does not count as a "contribution to society".
Don't you have any idea how beneficial spending time with your family is to the rest of society? Or have you never been around kids that have been ignored by their parents? Smiley: dubious Seriously, it doesn't turn out well.


Sure, and we can measure how important it is to the whole of society by measuring how much we spend helping people spend more time with their families. I'd suggest though, that in the realm of "things we should encourage parents to do or not do", merely spending more time with their kids is kinda low on the list. Maybe "not be a drug addict" is higher? Just a thought.

Quote:
Besides I do get paid to spend time with my family, it's in my benefits package. Smiley: tongue


So there you go. Seems like you're actually confirming what I'm saying.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#125 Aug 06 2014 at 5:28 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts


But I was wearing Victorian clothes when I typed "sex"


Go on.....

Wait, not the beginning of a time travel fan fiction involving Elizabeth Benet and Veronica Mars?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#126 Aug 06 2014 at 5:35 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
It's just harder to see how the interest the banker earned off lending money to people is a "contribution"

What is hard to see is how it's a contribution for someone to take that money and pay others for labor, but at a rate low enough that they profit. Profit is what's hard to see as a "contribution" Labor is obviously a contribution.


Except that by that logic, the laborer should give his work freely as well. Being paid is "profiting", right? What you're really talking about doesn't have anything to do with whether what someone *does* contributes to society, but attempting to justify putting some authority in place empowered to arbitrarily decide how much profit is too much.

So if we pay the laborer say $50k/year, that's fine, but if we pay him $500k/year that's too much? That's silly. If others in society were willing to pay the laborer 10 times more for his work, it's most likely because what he's doing is actually worth 10 times as much to them. Thus, his "contribution to society" is 10 times greater. Evaluated by the actual members of society rather than some star chamber somewhere. That seems like a much better way to measure things IMO.

Quote:
The guy who digs a path and lays asphalt for a road has an obvious contribution to society.


Yup. And we measure that contribution by paying him for it based on how much *we* actually value the path he dug and laid asphalt on. Seems kinda straightforward to me. If we don't use that method, then what method do you propose we use to determine how much he's contributing?


Quote:
The guy who happened to have a pile of money and paid him to do that so his pile could get larger has none.


Except that your issue appears to have less to do with the actual contribution (ie: the work that was done) and more with "I don't like people making too much money". That's your own problem IMO, and has nothing to do with contribution to society.

Quote:
Let's be clear, it *absolutely* is "happened to have". Wealth isn't derived from making good decisions in capitalism, it's derived from privilege and luck. Not arguable.


Sigh. Not just arguable, but completely false. I get that in order to trick people into adopting your nutty ideology you have to first lie to them and convince them that their efforts mean nothing and it's all just luck that determines outcomes, but that's simply not true. Wealth is derived via good decisions. Period. There can be luck involved (almost always is), but you must *also* make good decisions. Otherwise the statistics on lottery winners declaring bankruptcy would not be so high. Clearly, it's not just luck.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#127 Aug 06 2014 at 5:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Debalic wrote:
Right, because if you're lucky enough to be privileged it won't matter, you still have a prestigious family to fallback on. You could even go on to become president.


This only makes sense if we assume that our economy consists solely of billionaires and their families and poor people living on scraps, with nothing in between. However, for the majority who actually live between those two extremes, the decisions and actions they make have a massive effect on their outcomes. Attempting to convince people otherwise is bizarre. It's like arguing that since only a small number of people with lucky genes can be Olympic swimmers, there's no point in anyone else bothering to learn how to swim. That's just... stupid.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#128 Aug 06 2014 at 6:07 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,924 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Right, because if you're lucky enough to be privileged it won't matter, you still have a prestigious family to fallback on. You could even go on to become president.


This only makes sense if we assume that our economy consists solely of billionaires and their families and poor people living on scraps, with nothing in between.

And hopefully we can avoid this outcome.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#129 Aug 06 2014 at 6:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,223 posts
Smasharoo wrote:


But I was wearing Victorian clothes when I typed "sex"


Go on.....

Wait, not the beginning of a time travel fan fiction involving Elizabeth Benet and Veronica Mars?



Ada Lovelace turns up in the fourth chapter. She dazzles!
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#130 Aug 06 2014 at 6:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Right, because if you're lucky enough to be privileged it won't matter, you still have a prestigious family to fallback on. You could even go on to become president.


This only makes sense if we assume that our economy consists solely of billionaires and their families and poor people living on scraps, with nothing in between.

And hopefully we can avoid this outcome.


Replacing wages with government benefits is a pretty sure way to get there though. Hence why some of us oppose greater and greater benefits.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#131 Aug 06 2014 at 8:04 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,924 posts
If the working class isn't routinely oppressed and taken advantage of we wouldn't need more benefits. Shall we keep going?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#132 Aug 06 2014 at 8:05 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,552 posts
gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
It's just harder to see how the interest the banker earned off lending money to people is a "contribution"

What is hard to see is how it's a contribution for someone to take that money and pay others for labor, but at a rate low enough that they profit. Profit is what's hard to see as a "contribution" Labor is obviously a contribution.


Except that by that logic, the laborer should give his work freely as well. Being paid is "profiting", right?


Did you know that if you take a little bit of black, and a little bit of white, you get a WHOLE NEW COLOR?!???!!!!!???ONE111!

It's cray-cray!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#133 Aug 06 2014 at 9:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
gbaji wrote:
Since I have no idea what you're talking about, how about *you* tell me why you think this doesn't make an ounce of sense. I've never said that earnings is the *only* measure of contribution. Just that it's a good starting point to use. While not all contributions to society can be measured by earnings, most earnings do reflect relative contribution to society. I'm not sure how a mother's perspective changes that fact.
Fair enough.

Let's start with this post by Elinda a while back. In there it states that only about 68% of the "work" by the average father is paid. Above that only 40% of the work an average mother does is paid (hence my ask a mother comment btw). That is a significant portion of the time people spend doing things that they aren't compensated for. One could easily assume those things are important to the functioning of a household, and potentially very necessary, but none of it is paid of course. Only having about 1/2 of the work ((40+68)/2 = 54%) of the work a person does being compensated does throw a lot into the equation. While it might be a nice place to "start" arguably it should only account for about 1/2 the answer for much of the country. I'd also point out that "unpaid work" appears nowhere on that graphic. I suppose we should probably correct for pay discrepancies between the sexes too while we're at it perhaps?

gbaji wrote:
Sure, and we can measure how important it is to the whole of society by measuring how much we spend helping people spend more time with their families. I'd suggest though, that in the realm of "things we should encourage parents to do or not do", merely spending more time with their kids is kinda low on the list. Maybe "not be a drug addict" is higher? Just a thought.
You realize that spending time with your kids and raising them well is a great way to accomplish the "not be a dug addict" thing right? I mean the point is that you're spending that time helping them become better members of society, building a relationship with them, etc.

Edit: I mean look at it this way, you're not going to get me to believe that a guy who made $60k selling heroin for some street gang somehow has a more valuable contribution to society than a stay-at-home mother of 3 who only made $500 selling quilts on Etsy.

Quote:
So there you go. Seems like you're actually confirming what I'm saying.
You know, if you really want to start with income, feel free to start there. You have to start somewhere I suppose, but I can't imagine it would be a very good metric in the end, unless one largely has no contribution to society outside of paid work, doesn't have a family, etc. That's not most people though.

I'm actually rather surprised I have to argue to a Republican that family values and charity should constitute a significant portion one's contribution to society. Isn't that like your guy's thing or something? Or has the Compassionate Conservative gone the way of the Southern Democrat already?

Edited, Aug 6th 2014 8:50pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#134 Aug 06 2014 at 10:07 PM Rating: Good
someproteinguy wrote:
Compassionate Conservative
That'd be a RINO.
someproteinguy wrote:
Southern Democrat
That'd be a Neo-Con.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#135 Aug 07 2014 at 6:11 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts


Except that by that logic, the laborer should give his work freely as well. Being paid is "profiting", right?


Nope, it's not. I would honestly have not thought it possible that you could be so startlingly fucking ignorant after the many many remedial lessons in basic economics you've been provided, but once again, no. Being paid for labor is not "profiting". I'll assume the rest of your post relies on that initial obvious falsehood and not bother reading it.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#136 Aug 07 2014 at 6:32 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
Profit is gain above and beyond the value or worth of good and/or services.

Profit is what's left when McDonalds exploits it's workers so that at the end of the day the money taken in by selling burger exceeds the money needed to pay it's workers/managers/ceo's and all expenses. If the market is working correctly, there shouldn't be 'profit'. Everyone gets their pay. The CEO's get a nice chunk more than the managers who get a chunk more than the workers, this pay along with all expenses should just about equal the amount taken in.

If there is an excess of 'profit' it can only be because someone is not getting their fair share somewhere in the process. Once this profit would have been reinvested to make more jobs, more value, more burgers and better burgers or highly taxed. But then corporations, lobbyists, deregulation, more exploitation of those that need to feed their babies and their burger addictions and wallah more profit, or super-profit if you're a marxist.



____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#137 Aug 07 2014 at 7:26 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
That seems like a much better way to measure things IMO.
If we ignore all of human history and pretend a hypothetical is a useful device in reality based arguments, sure.
gbaji wrote:
I get that in order to trick people into adopting your nutty ideology you have to first lie to them and convince them
Shame that you're such a lousy liar, isn't it?
gbaji wrote:
It's like arguing that since only a small number of people with lucky genes can be Olympic swimmers, there's no point in anyone else bothering to learn how to swim.
It's a lot like believing someone that claims that since they work with engineers it makes them engineers. That is stupid.
gbaji wrote:
Hence why some of us oppose greater and greater benefits.
Well, opposed non-white hetero male Christian Republicans from getting equal benefits, anyway.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#138 Aug 07 2014 at 7:56 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
Interesting article that, um, pretty much supports Smashes lunatic rantings about the rng being one of the largest determining factors in a persons financial status.

A longitudinal study done by researchers at Johns Hopkins University tracked 800 kids in Baltimore from first grade to adulthood to determine what the factors would predict success.

Quote:
They found that a child's fate is in many ways fixed at birth — determined by family strength and the parents' financial status.

The kids who got a better start — because their parents were married and working — ended up better off. Most of the poor kids from single-parent families stayed poor.

Just 33 children — out of nearly 800 — moved from the low-income to high-income bracket. And a similarly small number born into low-income families had college degrees by the time they turned 28.


STORY
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#139 Aug 07 2014 at 8:16 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
What was that, married parents raise more successful kids? Time to persecute single mothers some more, that'll solve this social mobility problem.

Phew, that was hard work. Time to go and chill out on my ranch for a couple of weeks.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#140 Aug 07 2014 at 8:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Clear some brush for me.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#141 Aug 07 2014 at 9:14 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,187 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Edit: I mean look at it this way, you're not going to get me to believe that a guy who made $60k selling heroin for some street gang somehow has a more valuable contribution to society than a stay-at-home mother of 3 who only made $500 selling quilts on Etsy.
$60k > $500 and more money is better. It's just obvious.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#142 Aug 07 2014 at 9:23 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts
What was that, married parents raise more successful kids? Time to persecute single mothers some more, that'll solve this social mobility problem.

Just black ones. Murphy Brown, totally fine.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#143 Aug 07 2014 at 9:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Compassionate Conservative
That'd be a RINO.
someproteinguy wrote:
Southern Democrat
That'd be a Neo-Con.
Y'all need to stop inventing new words for things.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#144 Aug 07 2014 at 9:31 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Y'all need to stop inventing new words for things.
Schadenfreude.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#145 Aug 07 2014 at 9:38 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,924 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Edit: I mean look at it this way, you're not going to get me to believe that a guy who made $60k selling heroin for some street gang somehow has a more valuable contribution to society than a stay-at-home mother of 3 who only made $500 selling quilts on Etsy.
$60k > $500 and more money is better. It's just obvious.

Obviously, mommy should be selling heroin from the house. Dual income families ftw
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#146 Aug 08 2014 at 7:24 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Debalic wrote:
Obviously, mommy should be selling heroin from the house.
Andrea Sanderlin?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#147 Aug 08 2014 at 4:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Fair enough.

Let's start with this post by Elinda a while back. In there it states that only about 68% of the "work" by the average father is paid. Above that only 40% of the work an average mother does is paid (hence my ask a mother comment btw). That is a significant portion of the time people spend doing things that they aren't compensated for. One could easily assume those things are important to the functioning of a household, and potentially very necessary, but none of it is paid of course. Only having about 1/2 of the work ((40+68)/2 = 54%) of the work a person does being compensated does throw a lot into the equation. While it might be a nice place to "start" arguably it should only account for about 1/2 the answer for much of the country. I'd also point out that "unpaid work" appears nowhere on that graphic. I suppose we should probably correct for pay discrepancies between the sexes too while we're at it perhaps?


The linked source isn't remotely relevant to this discussion though. You're a scientist, right? So let's test this theory.

Imagine we increased the percentage of hours spent in unpaid work to 100%. Would you expect that person's overall contribution to society to be higher or lower than if that percentage was at 50% (or 0%)? We can speculate all day long as to the value of the contribution to society made by hours spent doing housework, or teaching your children to read, or sleeping (after all, if you don't sleep you'll be unable to do any sort of contributing, right?). We can be as arbitrary as we want, and create as many levels of association we want, but at the end of the day the point I'm trying to make here is that in general the earnings you make reflect the degree to which others in society value the things you do. They might *also* value other things you do, but we can only quantitatively measure those associated with earnings.

After all, I could just as easily spend time teaching my children how to grift, right? So there's no way to measure that.

gbaji wrote:
You realize that spending time with your kids and raising them well is a great way to accomplish the "not be a dug addict" thing right? I mean the point is that you're spending that time helping them become better members of society, building a relationship with them, etc.


Again though, let's test this. Let's take the set of all parents and rank them based on the percentage of their time spent working versus staying at home with their children, and then assess the relative likelihood of their children becoming drug addicts. I'll give you a hint: It's the kids with the non-working parents who have the highest odds of becoming addicts, gang members, criminals, etc. Obviously, this isn't because the parents have more time at home, but... wait for it, the absence of two things:

1. The earnings which might allow them to live in a better area with fewer risk factors for the kids.

2. The positive example those earnings represent.


I'm not saying that there's no value to parents spending time with their children. I am saying that there's a massive value to children being raised by parent(s) who earn a living. Thus, in yet another (somewhat indirect) way, we see how earnings contribute to society.

Quote:
Edit: I mean look at it this way, you're not going to get me to believe that a guy who made $60k selling heroin for some street gang somehow has a more valuable contribution to society than a stay-at-home mother of 3 who only made $500 selling quilts on Etsy.


I'm not saying that at all. We have laws which penalize the person who earns his money selling drugs. You're arguing the exception, while ignoring the rule. When comparing people (legally) earning their money, we can generally say that the contribution each provides to society is relative to their respective earnings. Everything else remaining the same, this is a pretty decent rule of thumb.

Quote:
I'm actually rather surprised I have to argue to a Republican that family values and charity should constitute a significant portion one's contribution to society. Isn't that like your guy's thing or something? Or has the Compassionate Conservative gone the way of the Southern Democrat already?


Family values starts with providing for one's own family first though. And that kinda starts with earning a salary, right? Hell. Earning enough so that your spouse can remain a stay at home mom/dad is even better, right? But you're able to do that because you earn more. It all starts with making the things you do more valuable to other people.

This is in contrast to the Left's approach of ignoring what one actually does for others and just reward people for showing up. And while that sounds all nice and charitable, over time it results in more and more cost for less and less "contribution". And along the way we actually end out discouraging the very charity and contribution we may have started out thinking we were trying to reward.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#148 Aug 08 2014 at 5:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You're a scientist, right? So let's test this theory.

Imagine we...

You don't understand how scientists test theories, do you?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#149 Aug 08 2014 at 5:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Elinda wrote:
Profit is gain above and beyond the value or worth of good and/or services.


That's not even close to a working definition of profit. Profit is the gain above the *cost* to provide the good and/or services, not the value of those things.

If it costs me $100 to buy the materials for a birdhouse, and I can sell the assembled product to you for $150, then my profit is $50. You learned this in school, right? What this means is that all gains from labor are profit. Always. What I added to the cost to buy the materials for the birdhouse was my time/labor. I get that some of you want profit to be some kind of dirty word only applied to evil rich people, but the reality is that every time you collect a paycheck you are receiving profits off your labor.

Quote:
Profit is what's left when McDonalds exploits it's workers so that at the end of the day the money taken in by selling burger exceeds the money needed to pay it's workers/managers/ceo's and all expenses. If the market is working correctly, there shouldn't be 'profit'.


That's... insane. If there wasn't profit, why would anyone bother running a business? Seriously, stop and think about this. What you're saying is ludicrous.


Quote:
Everyone gets their pay. The CEO's get a nice chunk more than the managers who get a chunk more than the workers, this pay along with all expenses should just about equal the amount taken in.


That's not how it works. It *can't* work that way.

Quote:
If there is an excess of 'profit' it can only be because someone is not getting their fair share somewhere in the process.


NO, NO, NO, No, No, No! If there is a profit, it means that you produced something which others valued more than your cost to produce it. Profit is a measure of the value you added. When you take some pieces of wood and turn it into something someone else is willing to pay more than the cost of the wood for, you have added value to the pieces of wood. Your "profit" is the measure of that value addition.


Quote:
Once this profit would have been reinvested to make more jobs, more value, more burgers and better burgers or highly taxed. But then corporations, lobbyists, deregulation, more exploitation of those that need to feed their babies and their burger addictions and wallah more profit, or super-profit if you're a marxist.


This is completely non-sensical. Profits are spent investing in things designed to earn more profits. But this isn't a bad thing, unless you've been brainwashed into not realizing what profit is really measuring. The rich person doesn't take the money he makes away from other people. Money itself has no intrinsic value. The money he makes is a measure of the things that he provided for others that exceeded the cost to produce. I really think this is a concept that far far too many people just don't understand (and actually get completely backwards).

If I give you a shirt, and you give me $10, I didn't take anything from you. I provided you with a shirt. You gave me a piece of paper that records the fact that I gave you something and took nothing in return. Now, later I can exchange that piece of paper for something of equal value, but it's important to note that money itself measures what someone has provided to others, not what he has taken from them. And obviously, profit is the degree to which you did that in an efficient manner. It's not "bad" at all. It's necessary for the market to work.

It's also not something just rich people do. We all profit, all the time.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#150 Aug 08 2014 at 5:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're a scientist, right? So let's test this theory.

Imagine we...

You don't understand how scientists test theories, do you?


Yes, I do. Do you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#151 Aug 08 2014 at 6:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, yes. It doesn't start with a variant of "Let's pretend".

This explains a lot about your typical conservative's grasp of science though...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 31 All times are in CDT
Bijou, BonYogi, Kastigir, Anonymous Guests (28)