The stupidity of "Saving the empovershed by empoverishing their counterparts..."

[Dieval]

Afterthought: Wouldn't empowering the empoverished with REAL paying jobs and salaries, and taxing them less giving them the ability to spend more outside of necessities, which would and should drive up demands, ENRICH the WHOLE? But it seems that ENRICHING the whole isn't on EVERYONES agenda, is it...

Who's stopping these impoverished people from getting "REAL paying jobs and salaries"?

[Apeman81]

Of course not. If everyone was rich, the current rich would lose their power and status.

Putting aside the fallacy of everyone achieving a comparative (if all have the same wealth, none can be poor or rich), this satement fails on several levels.

Look at any "rich" nation. The look at any "poor" nation. Do you notice the difference in the lifestyle and condition enjoyed by all but the few who choose to live outside the collective? The poor in a rich nation such as the U.S. drive their own car, watch cable on their flat screens and eat food and sleep in an air conditioned room.

Now look at a "poor" nation. Cardboard\corrugated steel walls, dirt floors, maybe running water to the home, more often a community well, electricity? Refrigeration? Not to mention roving bands of criminals or paramilitary.

A rising tide does indeed lift all boats. You want more, go and get more. People with drive do it all the time. Not everyone can be Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, but they don;t have to be minimum wagers all their life either.

[Dodds]

Who's stopping these impoverished people from getting "REAL paying jobs and salaries"?

The so called job creators who don't seem to want to pay a living wage to people.

http://www.epi.org/publication/the_s...es_in_america/

[Dan74]

Putting aside the fallacy of everyone achieving a comparative (if all have the same wealth, none can be poor or rich), this satement fails on several levels.

Look at any "rich" nation. The look at any "poor" nation. Do you notice the difference in the lifestyle and condition enjoyed by all but the few who choose to live outside the collective? The poor in a rich nation such as the U.S. drive their own car, watch cable on their flat screens and eat food and sleep in an air conditioned room.

Now look at a "poor" nation. Cardboard\corrugated steel walls, dirt floors, maybe running water to the home, more often a community well, electricity? Refrigeration? Not to mention roving bands of criminals or paramilitary.

A rising tide does indeed lift all boats. You want more, go and get more. People with drive do it all the time. Not everyone can be Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, but they don;t have to be minimum wagers all their life either.

Bulllllllllllshittttttttttttttttttttt

Seems to me like you haven't been through a truly poor neighborhood in the US. Ever heard of Appalachia? Thousands of people are literally starving there. Just a few dozen miles away farmers are burning excess wheat out of fear that the price will drop too low.

[Apeman81]

The so called job creators who don't seem to want to pay a living wage to people.

http://www.epi.org/publication/the_s...es_in_america/

Greater productivity allows for decreased price, allowing more people to obtain more of the good or service in question. Artificially raising the cost of production does not help anyone, as the resultant rise in the price of the object will affect all who wish to obtain it.

The "living wage" is a favored fairy tale of the statist and collectivist. If only wages would go up, we would all have everything we want.

Naturally, the McDonald's combo would be $11.00 instead of $6.00. The cost of food in general would rise. As would clothing, housing, and, well, almost everything else.

[Apeman81]

Bulllllllllllshittttttttttttttttttttt

Seems to me like you haven't been through a truly poor neighborhood in the US. Ever heard of Appalachia? Thousands of people are literally starving there. Just a few dozen miles away farmers are burning excess wheat out of fear that the price will drop too low.

And is Appalachia representative of the norm or of the extreme?

[Dan74]

And is Appalachia representative of the norm or of the extreme?

Why does it matter? There is more than enough wealth to provide them with basic needs, but no one feels obligated to do that.

[Apeman81]

Why does it matter? There is more than enough wealth to provide them with basic needs, but no one feels obligated to do that.

Obligated by what?

[Dan74]

Obligated by what?

I don't know, people fucking starving?

[Dodds]

Greater productivity allows for decreased price, allowing more people to obtain more of the good or service in question. Artificially raising the cost of production does not help anyone, as the resultant rise in the price of the object will affect all who wish to obtain it.

I see you are ignorant of the sticky prices. For someone who claims to know about Keynesian economic theory you sure don't know much.

http://www.economywatch.com/exchange...ice-model.html

The "living wage" is a favored fairy tale of the statist and collectivist. If only wages would go up, we would all have everything we want.

And then we have the right wing and ignorant who do not understand that the last things to fall in an economic downturn are wages and prices. It is a fantasy to think they will. In other words learn what you are talking about before you type already debunked nonsense.

Naturally, the McDonald's combo would be $11.00 instead of $6.00. The cost of food in general would rise. As would clothing, housing, and, well, almost everything else.

Prices rise anyways. That is the nature of an economy. Also this can be controlled with monetary policy. The problems you state already have the tools to fix them. The main problem is greed. Something which also can be controlled but ignorant and selfish right wing greedy fuckwits mess it all up for everyone.

Got anything else???

[kingjust627]

Who's stopping these impoverished people from getting "REAL paying jobs and salaries"?

Reading your mind... I'll answer it like this (even though no one stated that anyone was stopping anyone, as getting and empowering are 2 different things). Their lazy and sit on their ass... They get in their own way. LOL Seriously, there COULD be many reasons... but that is not the subject of this post. I would suggest opening a segway thread based on your statement. I feel it would be a good topic to cover, and can possibly kill some misconceptions (you know... "Their lazy and sit on their ass...").

Population, though, is something that comes to mind.

[kingjust627]

[QUOTE=Apeman81;879649]The "living wage" is a favored fairy tale of the statist and collectivist. If only wages would go up, we would all have everything we want.[QUOTE]

This is a bullshit comment. Having a living wage doesn't equate to "having everything we want". Where the fuck and how the fuck can you extrapolate one from the other????

Hypthothetical. If CEO salaries for any company was capped @ 1million, and their bonuses were capped out at half their salary, how much better would a company do by taking all of that money and reinvesting into their company by providing higher salaries for even the most meager of employees (mail room boy)? How much happier would the employees be knowing a company pays great? Happy employees always equal better performance and results, do they not? Also, more money for the regular working folks should provide disposable cash for them to reinvest into the economy.

But we do not have that, and i'm sure what I stated above is a pipe dream. 1million a year is just not enough for some people...