Why is the entire world seemingly ''stupid''?

No it is not a corporate word. The word was around long before corporations because it simply describes a human emotion which you let control your thinking.

You would call it something other than what others call it proves that you are not being objective you are being subjective.

You simply hate what others have earned.

 

The point is, the poor child doesn't have doors shut on them, even if they may not go through the exact same door as others. Opportunity exists. Some succeed because of what they are given and some do in spite of what they are given. The outcome depends on the person, not the circumstances the person was born into.

 

A completely different context to the discussion, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

Really? America would let a child die because of no health insurance, I would consider that a shut door.

So you really think that a person born into a poor life as the exact same chance as a person born into a rich life?

 

Income inequality is and always will be a Reality of Society. No matter what laws you implement, or what ethics you have, there will always be those people who will be better off than others, either by crooked schemes or genuinely good work.

As a wise saying once said, "We cannot provide for everyone's wants, but we can provide for everyone's needs." People talk of redistributing wealth, but that is merely a symptom of a much larger problem. That we simply are not providing for the needs of all. Thus, every policy that discusses income inequality should focus on lifting people of the working class into that of the middle class, not bashing on the 1% that quite frankly doesn't make much of a difference to your life, even if you were to rob them of every single penny. So you get a new flat screen TV and a shiny car... that doesn't solve your problem in the slightest. The government should be working towards providing a stable household: your bed to sleep, a kitchen to cook with, a bathroom to shower in, a computer to have leisure with, and the rest is up to you to improve what you have. The idea should be not Work to Survive, but rather Work to Thrive. The government's inability to provide upwards movement in society is what creates this income inequality dilemma. Almost no one is willing to help you for no reason, so it is up to the government to carry out that task. Thomas Jefferson once preached that everyone has a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness... perhaps it is time that we provide for that right to Pursue Happiness...

 

Thank you for not voting.

 

Yes the pursuit of happiness, I do like that quote thanks for sharing, the world is not a happy place for this very reason, I like your opinion.

 

It is NOT a different context. Life is inherently unfair. Some people are beautiful while others are ugly, some have high IQ's and others are functional idiots, some people are born into a lot of money and others are born into poverty etc. The only thing that any of us can do is to play the hand that we are dealt to the best of our ability. With these different starting points it is IMPOSSIBLE to have an equality of outcomes which seems to be what you are seeking.

Like it or not, an attractive person is a more valuable asset because they can produce more and are thus worth more money in a customer facing job.
Like it or not, an intelligent person is a more valuable asset because they can produce more and are thus worth more money in a job that requires brains.
Like it or not, a person born into money has an easier time paying for their education than a person born into poverty. The important thing is that there are opportunities for the person from a disadvantaged background to still get an education, and with Pell Grants and student loans, that opportunity DOES exist.

These are all undeniable realities.

 

I would happily go on stage if I thought I would be popular in any specific way, but obviously I know my limits when it comes to entertainment ''value''. So no I am not stupid I know I have no entertainment value, but you are rather trying to change the context of the issue.

 

I see you are subjected to the subjective and it is your belief what you define as pretty.

 

I see that you are afraid to address the substance of what I am saying and instead are opting to get bogged down in the minutia. This isn't about the subjectivity of pretty, it is about the reality that life is inherently unfair and there is nothing that government can do to change that reality. All any of us can do is play the hand that we are dealt to the best of our ability.

 

You are incorrect, the government can make equality if they really wanted too. The point is they don't really care about the people, they care about themselves and their own lucrative salaries.

 

Yes- poverty is an unhealthy position, of sorts. Depends on how you live; in some lifestyles money is less important. The catch here is that this is a problem that can easily be addressed by the person in poverty, just as the issue of health damage from smoking can be addressed by the smoker. The government is attempting to influence the decision to smoke, just as it should attempt to influence the decision to be self-sufficient rather than live in poverty. That is not the same as subsidizing people in poverty (which we already do extensively) and it is important to note that subsidy is dependence- not motivation to better yourself, but motivation to stay where you are. Not all in poverty would chose to be there- but they don't chose to not be there, as in do whatever is necessary to change the situation. Attitude is a huge factor here. When you blame others for your position, you surrender your own power to change it, and that means the person with the most at stake would rather pass the buck than accept the responsibility.

There are two types of situation here, with a huge difference. The first one is the person who is in trouble because of some event beyond his control, such as an accident. He would be productive if he could, but for a period of time may be unable to. This person needs and deserves our "Hand-Up", to enable him to get back on his feet and return to productivity- and this is usually a person who would do the same for others, paying it forward. I'm all for it, and we don't need government to tell us to do it.

The second one is in trouble because he's put himself there- through lack of motivation, a continuous history of poor decisions and bad judgment about finance, work, education and so on. This person is looking for a "Hand-Out", a substitute income that someone who works for it will provide to him so that he does not have to work. Such a person is responsible for his own situation- and giving him money to allow it to continue is not a healthy thing to do, for him or for society.

Unfortunately, the government has absolutely no ability to distinguish between these two- and is more likely to subsidize the latter, who will make any claim to get free money, than they are the former- who often will take as little as possible, and feel somewhat ashamed to do that. It's one more area where government intervention not only fails to solve a problem, but often makes it worse.

Salary is the price paid for value received. You are free to market your services to any buyer anywhere. If the price is "inadequate", perhaps it is because the product is not worth more- despite what the person selling may think. Of course, it's nearly impossible to convince someone who has bought into the idea that his salary is unfair of that. He prefers to believe that there is a conspiracy to cheat him, which is much more comfortable than discovering that you are only worth what you are getting paid. Thus, he rejects the one thing that would empower him- responsibility for his own choices and thinking.

 

While I certainly concur with your point about corporate/money having too much influence in politics, I disagree with your implicit contention that there is no difference between the parties when it comes to supporting working folks versus billionaires. That is a false equivalency promulgated by RW propaganda.

The record says othewise.

It wasn't the Republicans who promoted raising the minimum wage, passing health care reform, raising taxes on millionaires, cutting FICA taxes, promoting unions representation, expanding unemployment benefits, or regulating business. It was Democrats.

It was the Democrats, not the Republicans, that wanted to raise taxes on high income earners.
It was the Democrats, not the Republicans, that wanted to raise investment taxes.
It was the Democrats, not the Republicans, that wanted to raise estate taxes.
It was the Democrats, not the Republicans, that wanted to reform the health care system and expand coverage to low income people.
It was the Democrats, not the Republicans, that wanted to start Govt projects to get more people employed.
It was the Democrats, not the Republicans, that wanted to cut FICA taxes.
It was the Democrats, not the Republicans, that wanted to extend unemployment benefits for those who lost jobs in the GR.

It was the Republicans, not the Democrats, that wanted to cut income taxes mostly benefiting the richest.
It was the Republicans, not the Democrats, that wanted to eliminate estate taxes.
It was the Republicans, not the Democrats, that wanted to reduce or eliminate investment taxes.
It was the Republicans, not the Democrats, that have blocked all stimulus proposals and locked spending to actually decrease over a four year period, unprecedented in modern history.
It was the Republicans, not the Democrats, that wanted to cut unemployment benefits.

It wasn't the Republicans who pushed for a SS tax cut.
It wasn't the Republicans who pushed for a minimum tax on millionaires.
It wasn't the Republicans who pushed to raise taxes on folks making over $250k.
It was the Democrats who passed health care reform which will provide coverage to tens of millions who don't have it.
It was the Democrats who pushed for expansion of unemployment benefits that helped tens of millions get through the recession.
It was the Democrats who passed an increase of the minimum wage so that the poorest works have a bit more income.

 

So you're OK with Governments allowing Banks to get loans at 0.05% interest but requires that EVERYONE ELSE pays 5%?

I think your defense of the system as it currently is is a travesty and based on ignorance even of your cherished "economic principles" and "capitalism".

 

No, value is the context of the issue. All pay is based on value, nothing else.

I may go on stage for 2 hours, telling idiot jokes, just like George Carlin does. That does not mean that I will be paid what Carlin gets paid. We did the same work, but he was paid WAY more, and I was told to leave town.

An executive secretary with 30 years of experience is paid more than a fresh-from-college intern secretary new hire, because the experienced secretary creates more VALUE for his employer.

A ditch digger is paid more than a guy who just digs holes and refills them, because, the resulting ditch has VALUE, whereas, a dug-and-filled hole does not.

In each case, the work is the same, but the VALUE is different.

 

The premise of this thread is that fairness is the same as equality.

Life is inherently unfair...always has been and always will be. Some people are smarter, work harder, and have better personal habits than others, and as such are more in demand than someone who lacks those traits.

Why don't we give everyone in the Olympics a gold medal? Why should someone be penalized because they don't run as fast or jump as high as another athlete?

Once someone graduates from college and enters the real world there are no more participation trophies. Life is tough. Unfortunately some people can't compete and feel like they are entitled to their "fair share" regardless of whether or not they have earned it.

 

I see your two points, can you address the working poverty line where one hand ''feeds'' you and the other hand takes it back, meaning a person who receives a low income as it took all back in living expenses so works to survive rather than to exceed?

 

That is true, and there will always be less than ideal actions by some, at all levels of society. It would be impossible to correct this to create a perfect society, so it's somewhat irrelevant. For the most part, our system rewards the best with long term success- like Warren Buffets company, which had made thousand of people into millionaires, and is highly responsible. The worst are often high flying- and short lived.

 

This is another reason you need to vote. Some politicians very much want all children to have health care and some don't care if they do or don't. The numbers of uninsured children have dropped, but that is due to politicians making laws that cover them. If you want things to change, there is a path to make those changes. It won't come from simply complaining and giving up. It will come from grass-roots efforts to get politicians to make laws to cover them.

I'm old enough to remember segregated water fountains, bathrooms, businesses, and schools. I remember the teacher taking up our books at the end of the school term and boxing up the oldest and most worn to be sent to the "other" elementary school across town. That school got our worn out PE equipment too, as the PTA bought us new equipment. Blacks, women, and other minorities had no chance of being President then. While things aren't perfect now, they are certainly better than they were, and we should expect them to be better moving into the future. All that depends on people voting for the right candidates though.

Do I think a person born poor has the exact same chance as a person born rich? No. But they have a chance now, where they didn't before. They are not automatically doomed to live in poverty forever. Attitude and effort does make a difference.

 

No, the premise of this thread is why should people be paid more money for doing relatively less work why the average working class struggle and work long hours to survive.

 

Depends on what you mean by value.

Pay is based on the the market supply and demand of the individual's skills, not the value the individual contributes to creating a good or service.

"Value" based on market supply and demand can be far different than value based on what is contributed.

Since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, we've moved more and more towards a market supply and demand based mode for labor, and away from a value based on what the worker contributes. The owners/wealthy have pocketed the difference, and a massive re-distribution of income and wealth has been the result.

 

It is true that the poor child could make it by becoming popular in entertainment, a sporting star or on educational merit, however none of this justifies why the so called famous people deserve such an high income by nothing more than being popular and the trend that receives air time and is subjected on all.

 

The ONLY way that government can create equality is by bringing median earnings down to the lowest common denominator. Standard of living for a country is relative to the output ( GDP) of a country. The output of a country is relative to the incentive to produce. By creating a false "equality" you are disincentivizing the top producers from doing their best work.

Lets look at two people with inherently unfair beginnings. One guy has an IQ of 165, and the other one has schizophrenia. The guy with the IQ of 165 works hard and becomes a geneticist that develops a gene therapy that is an effective means of treating a particular form of cancer. The unfortunate guy with schizophrenia is able to assemble gift baskets that include a chocolate bunny and various easter candies. He doesn't like stress, doesn't produce much in terms of volume, but he takes pride in his work and what he does complete is well done.

By your logic, these two people should be earning the same money. The fact of the matter is that the geneticist is FAR more valuable to society, and increases the output of their country far more than the guy assembling gift baskets. If we pay them both the same amount of money, what incentive does the geneticist have to make all the sacrifices they made in order to be successful ? Don't give me the line of BS about the satisfaction of helping society. There may be a little of that as motivation, but for the most part, certainly across most careers, people strive to be better in their jobs so that they can provide more for their family. If you take away the incentive to provide more for ones family, you have taken away the lions share of a persons incentive to produce.

 

Your question has been clearly answered several times.

Life is tough. If you want to make more money make yourself more marketable. It's that simple. It's the way things are.

Going through life looking into everyone else's pocket will do nothing but make you feel miserable. It's a choice.