Panicked super rich buying boltholes with private airstrips to escape if poor rise up

originally posted by: tiberius10721
a reply to: redhorse

Okay explain to me why if you are poor you would breed? Why if you are poor would you want to have kids that you can't afford? Are you telling me poor people are to stupid to know how to practice birth control?
I would like to see what would happen if all welfare benefits were phased out over 5 years I bet people would think twice before having kids they can't afford!

Stupid isn't the word I would use, but the lower a person is on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, the more children they have and the earlier they have them. People who are poor and can't afford adequete food/shelter are automatically low on the hierarchy. Being rich doesn't necessarily translate to being much higher but a good job does lead to higher self esteem, and adequete housing/food which does put you higher on the list and therefore less likely to have children. Furthermore, people with better jobs tend to be more career focused and have that as a major factor in their life. If you're working at McDonalds for 25 hours/week you tend to be looking for some sort of greater purpose in life and children can provide that.

a reply to: Aazadan

When I worked at Carl's junior I wa focused on getting a better job not having children . I knew I could never achieve my dreams working in fast food but it taught me how to manage money,show up for work on time etc. it was just a stepping stone for me! Having children while i was working at a fast food joint would have just provided misery for me lol😄😄😄

originally posted by: tiberius10721
a reply to: boohoo
Keep my advice to people that are worried about whether or not they can afford to send their kids to a good college is if it is that big of a concern then don't have kids if you can't afford them.

Putting aside that accidents happen, no birth control is 100% you can't simply tell people to not have kids. What you say makes perfect sense except for one problem. Humans aren't 100% logical beings, we act on emotions, we act on ideology, and we act on circumstance. All studies on human psychology have shown that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to have more kids. We have this on the micro level where we see large inner city families but smaller families for those in the suburbs, and we have this on a macro level where developed nations have significantly lower birth rates than undeveloped nations.

As humans we are simply hard wired to have more children when times are bad. Because of this the solution isn't to encourage people to stop breeding, we've tried that many times throughout history and it has never worked. The solution is to reduce wealth gaps, increase the comforts people have in life, and give them more opportunity for upward mobility. That is the proven way to not just reduce the birth rate but make sure that only people who can afford kids are having them.

originally posted by: tiberius10721
a reply to: Aazadan

When I worked at Carl's junior I wa focused on getting a better job not having children . I knew I could never achieve my dreams working in fast food but it taught me how to manage money,show up for work on time etc. it was just a stepping stone for me! Having children while i was working at a fast food joint would have just provided misery for me lol😄😄😄

That's great for you, but like anything dealing with humans the individual isn't indicative of the whole. How many of those people that you worked fast food with did have children?

a reply to: Aazadan

Show me an example here in America where the government has encouraged poor people to stop breeding! In fact I've seen just the opposite for 60 plus years our govt has been encouraging poor people to breed through welfare checks food stamps,free medical benefits and cheap housing! I have nothing against people having children I just don't want to continue paying for their dicision to have children they can't afford! Show me one example where reducing wealth gap here in America has reduced birth rates!

originally posted by: tiberius10721
a reply to: Aazadan

Show me an example here in America where the government has encouraged poor people to stop breeding! In fact I've seen just the opposite for 60 plus years our govt has been encouraging poor people to breed through welfare checks food stamps,free medical benefits and cheap housing! I have nothing against people having children I just don't want to continue paying for their dicision to have children they can't afford! Show me one example where reducing wealth gap here in America has reduced birth rates!

Well, eugenics was quite popular in the US in the 20's, 30's, and mid 40's. That would be one example where the poor, disabled, and everyone else who wasn't deemed a wealthy contributing member of society was discouraged from having children, very often through forced sterilization.

As far as the wealth gap goes, reducing the wealth gap reduces the number of people who have children before they can afford them. Being a developed nation that continues to develop we're going to have a mostly declining birth rate either way but in times of prosperity it declines more. The birth rate actually increased for the first time in 5 years in 2013, which is an indication that things in 2013 are roughly on par with the 2008 collapse as far as economic outlook goes. A smaller wealth gap leads to people being higher on Maslows Hierarchy which leads to fewer children and people being more likely to have them only when they're able.

originally posted by: neo96
Yeah well that is what capitalism IS.

Not the bullsnip being peddled in this thread that comes straight out of the communist manifesto.

Bourgeoisie and Proletariat what the modern day folk call the rich, and poor.

That science is called EVOLUTION.

Oh, no, another believer in "Social Darwinism" that doesn't know the difference between it and "Evolution".

You do realize that the concept of "Social Darwinism" is different than the theory of "Evolution"? What you are describing is NOT "Evolution", what you are describing is "Social Darwinism". They are NOT the same thing and the terms are not interchangeable.

originally posted by: Cuervo
So it's perfectly acceptable to you that our current economic rules allow for a large segment of society to remain working and poor? Do you suggest that everybody just become engineers and then nobody will stock the shelves in the grocery stores or clean the floors at night?

What you are suggesting is impossible. You would simply end up with tons of people trying to pay off their student debt with their McDonalds jobs.

Absolutely correct Cuervo...

Up to the 1940 a person could get just about any job with an 8th grade education, but today you need a BA or Masters for entry level.

Why?

Because the government & big business figured out a long time ago that populations would certainly increase over time, but due to technology advancements, the availability of jobs would not expand to meet that population growth. There is a reason they don’t want people dropping out of high school and then at the same time, encourage those high school graduates to attend junior college, then a 4 year university and finally a Masters degree or PhD. They do so because it DECREASES the amount of people looking for full-time employment at the SAME TIME, chasing after jobs in a market that CANNOT provide employment for everyone looking for, able, qualified for and willing to work.

Look at it this way, when people could get a job with an 8th grade education, they went out and did it as soon as possible (opportunity cost). Then jobs got scarcer and the minimum requirement became a high school diploma, adding 4 more years of people NOT Looking for jobs within their cohort. Then jobs got even scarcer and the minimum became a 2 or 4 year college degree, adding an additional 2-4 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort. Now jobs are really scarce and may require a Masters or PHD, adding an additional 2-7 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort.

Basically the way the economy has been structured TODAY, we are looking at young people within their cohort whom are NOT looking for full-time, career type, employment for 6-15 YEARS, beyond K-12, all while they finish more school!!!

This has been done ON PURPOSE, to keep the number people seeking employment lower. In 1920 after 8th grade everyone who was able, went out to look for work and typically found it, that’s simply NOT possible today under any circumstances. Easily accessed welfare will soon add another 1-3 years of people within a cohort, to those “not seeking employment”. Not to the specific detriment of society, but to continue to mask the illusion that jobs and upward mobility are still available. So, if someone gets a graduate degree and collects 1-3 years of welfare on top of than, that’s ONE less person competing for scarce jobs. The extra years of welfare are then acting in the same way to the larger economy as the increased minimum education levels for employment, with the real goal of decreasing the number of able-bodied applicants out on the job market at the same time. This cohort of people "not pursuing full-time employment" also includes those in Prison, Government pensioners/SSI and the disabled on government assistance. If everyone needed to go out and “get a job” or “start their own business” TODAY, as many “capitalists” and "entrepreneurs" suggest these days, we would all be making 0.25 cents a day.

With big business being hell bent on replacing living workers with machines, such comments as those in this post, miss a subtle point that ONLY the children of the wealthy will have the opportunity to become TRUE experts in such fields. Let me clarify, through the prior 20th century, a poor kid who studied hard could become a lawyer, engineer, accountant, even a doctor sometimes with the right combination of hard work, savings, scholarships, family support, etc, OR they simply went into the trades and learned on the job WITH pay. HOWEVER, in engineering and technician curriculum’s today, times are changing, which now favors kids whom have access to expensive software and hardware to “experiment” with and “practice” on before entering college or a particular training program. So when they finally get to college or to their first apprenticeship, those whom have had lots of free time to “play” with robotics and programming, outside of the classroom, WILL CERTAINLY outpace their less privileged peer, who flips burgers part-time, to pay rent and school expenses.

Before 1990, 40% of teenagers had part-time jobs while in school. This is a relevant statistic because today only 20% of teenagers in school have part-time jobs. Teens at one time made up a sizable portion of the workforce and such has changed dramatically in current employment practices.

Although not my primary point, I do think there is plenty of evidence that teens today do not have the opportunity to get part-time jobs, BUT at the same time, the wealthy ones are beginning to develop advanced skill-sets that COULD be MORE helpful in their future adult careers, than say, “working at a taco stand after school”. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are very good examples of people who made use of their free time and access to money, without having to EVER labor for pay when young, and ultimately developed specialized skills that could not be learned at a MINDLESS part-time job or even in formal schooling. In the end, they leveraged that free time learning, into long term careers.

Those whom are going to be rendered jobless by automation/robotics/tech are going to be the least likely to be able to pick up these pieces in the coming era of traditional jobs destruction. Its going to IMPOSSIBLE for the poor to go back to school, get a masters degree in robotics, in full-time-only engineering programs, that strongly discourage their admitted students from taking part-time jobs, while favoring students who have both the money and free time and don’t EVER work at an unrelated job to their majors, who then buy expensive robotics hardware/software to experiment with outside of class.

I believe “rich kid job mobility" is going to be a bigger problem for regular folks, beyond even what the previous "rich kid" pedigree typically brought in the 20th century. This unfettered access to endless money and time to “explore” academics and hands-on work, with NO consequences, is going to END job mobility of any kind for the lower and middle classes, even those whom have met the typical required higher education and work experience standards. Its going to be a superstar only job market, with no room for middle of road folks.

a reply to: tiberius10721

I completely agree. EDUCATION. But, do you think the newborn is going to get that from stupid parents? That is why sex education is so important in schools. Otherwise, the circle just never gets broken.

a reply to: Edumakated

Then I would put you in the category of having good intelligent parents or you were born smart. Very few are born with either. But our children have to live with their children in the same world. That is what I don't get about the rich. They can't really believe that they will always be around to protect their children from the world they left behind.

originally posted by: boohoo
With big business being hell bent on replacing living workers with machines, such comments as those in this post, miss a subtle point that ONLY the children of the wealthy will have the opportunity to become TRUE experts in such fields. Let me clarify, through the prior 20th century, a poor kid who studied hard could become a lawyer, engineer, accountant, even a doctor sometimes with the right combination of hard work, savings, scholarships, family support, etc, OR they simply went into the trades and learned on the job WITH pay. HOWEVER, in engineering and technician curriculum’s today, times are changing, which now favors kids whom have access to expensive software and hardware to “experiment” with and “practice” on before entering college or a particular training program. So when they finally get to college or to their first apprenticeship, those whom have had lots of free time to “play” with robotics and programming, outside of the classroom, WILL CERTAINLY outpace their less privileged peer, who flips burgers part-time, to pay rent and school expenses.

I've discussed this issue with you before but I was recently out on a Friday night and talking to some people locally since I live in what's kind of a college town. I brought this point up to people and they agreed, they wanted to go into the same major I'm currently in but were unable. There are aptitude tests to get into the program that require years of experience before ever taking your first class. I'm lucky and have that experience but many don't.

In my classes every semester the very first lines at the top of every syllabus are "Do not take this class while holding a job, you will not pass". If you can't work how are you supposed to build experience? How do you even pay for the classes in the first place? I'm in a programming heavy field (simulation/game engineering), it is very time intensive and classwork alone is not enough. You need side projects too, for any job I ever get hired for or will be hired for in the future I need a portfolio of stuff I have made outside of class. On top of that I need to be a master with about 100 different software programs ranging from freeware like Textpad, GIMP, and NetBeans to programs like Maya which cost $5000 (that I then need to update every other year), 3d printing (again, these are pricey), and I even need access to my own personal motion capture studio if I want any real time with the hardware/software/animation techniques.

I've been at this for a long time now and that has given me the opportunity to get the experience but for most people who want to do it? They're priced out of the chance, unless they like me spend 12 years in school (which has it's own associated costs) and get a few lucky employment breaks.

originally posted by: Aazadan
In my classes every semester the very first lines at the top of every syllabus are "Do not take this class while holding a job, you will not pass". If you can't work how are you supposed to build experience? How do you even pay for the classes in the first place? I'm in a programming heavy field (simulation/game engineering), it is very time intensive and classwork alone is not enough. You need side projects too, for any job I ever get hired for or will be hired for in the future I need a portfolio of stuff I have made outside of class. On top of that I need to be a master with about 100 different software programs ranging from freeware like Textpad, GIMP, and NetBeans to programs like Maya which cost $5000 (that I then need to update every other year), 3d printing (again, these are pricey), and I even need access to my own personal motion capture studio if I want any real time with the hardware/software/animation techniques.

I've been at this for a long time now and that has given me the opportunity to get the experience but for most people who want to do it? They're priced out of the chance, unless they like me spend 12 years in school (which has it's own associated costs) and get a few lucky employment breaks.

I'm finding that most people over 40, whom have never worked in or have done admin support for high tech fields, simply don't understand this phenomena and NEVER will. My parents are among that cohort, but on the other hand, the people whom I consult and work for fully agree with our position. The difference is, actually being in the tech trenches everyday, versus watching the TV and believing the opinions of other common laborers. Real business owners know this (meaning those employing hundreds of people with multimillion dollar, billable hour, contracts), not Joe Schmo Plumbing with a dozen employees and a gross revenue of less than $1,000,000 a year.

I guess we can just throw our hands up and wait for these people to become destitute, in the near future, due to economic circumstances beyond their control, possibly leading to some kind of mental revelation as a result.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: infinityorder


Nobody demands everyone gets paid the same...they demand to make enough for food and shelter when they work 40 hours.

Then maybe they should get more education, more experience, and more skills so they can provide more value and get paid more money.

People who do not have higher education who work 40 and more hours a week ,sometimes 1 to 3 jobs do not deserve to make enough money to live off?

"Provide more value" Define value as you use it. Is the guy that picks up your trash of low value because of his lower education? And therefore he should not complain if he cannot make enough to have a roof over his head and 3 meals a day for him and or his wife and his kids?

How would you rate his value after he and his co-workers in your state stop picking up the trash and leave it sitting there in front of the doors for a month? Would you gladly advocate for a decent minimum income for him and "Value" him then?


There sure are some psycho people in this world and you are one of them.

The only thing the rich have to worry about is a government that is taken over by either a socialist or revolutionary type. Beyond that what else can disturb their monopolies?

Castro ran them out of Cuba. Batista was letting them rape his country.

Castro didn’t take their heads; maybe he should have, but took their businesses and kicked their asses out.

If there is another economic depression and the people FINALLY see the GOP for what they are and get around the excuses they always offer for the rich plunderers, then there might be a social upheaval if another depression induced by the pigs happens.

The problem in America is the MSM who have been pimped and made whores by these rich people to dumb down the populace, particularly through Fox news and the GOP structure of distorted reality.

Until that level is upended they have nothing to worry about

(Cartman voice) When I get rich here shortly I'm buying Little Bokeelia. Then you guys can kiss my ass.

originally posted by: everyone

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: infinityorder


Nobody demands everyone gets paid the same...they demand to make enough for food and shelter when they work 40 hours.

Then maybe they should get more education, more experience, and more skills so they can provide more value and get paid more money.

People who do not have higher education who work 40 and more hours a week ,sometimes 1 to 3 jobs do not deserve to make enough money to live off?

"Provide more value" Define value as you use it. Is the guy that picks up your trash of low value because of his lower education? And therefore he should not complain if he cannot make enough to have a roof over his head and 3 meals a day for him and or his wife and his kids?

How would you rate his value after he and his co-workers in your state stop picking up the trash and leave it sitting there in front of the doors for a month? Would you gladly advocate for a decent minimum income for him and "Value" him then?


There sure are some psycho people in this world and you are one of them.

Yes. Typical liberal personal attack. When you're argument lacks any intelligence, insult whoever disagrees with you.

Defining value...

Let's use your example. Somebody has to come an pick up your garbage and put it into a truck.

How much is that worth to you?

Would you pay somebody $20 to pick up your garbage and put it into a truck, or would you walk out to the curb and do it yourself when the truck stops?

As you ponder an honest answer and your hateful rebuttal, give serious consideration to the question. How much would you pay somebody to walk your garbage out to the road and put it into a truck before it was cheaper and easier for you to do it yourself?

You'll find your answer defines value.

I hope when the 1% leave they take thier sympathizers with them. Meaning people who agree with or support the 1%, thier corporations, and thier materialistic ideology can flee with thier super rich masters. They can be good little servants till the end. . . .

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
I hope when the 1% leave they take thier sympathizers with them. Meaning people who agree with or support the 1%, thier corporations, and thier materialistic ideology can flee with thier super rich masters. They can be good little servants till the end. . . .

Yes, because it is very difficult when others have a different point of view that upsets your core beliefs about yourself.

Funny how liberals advocate for diversity until somebody comes along who doesn't agree with them. Then they advocate for exile.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

I hope when the 1% leave they take thier sympathizers with them. Meaning people who agree with or support the 1%, thier corporations, and thier materialistic ideology can flee with thier super rich masters. They can be good little servants till the end. . . .

Yes, because it is very difficult when others have a different point of view that upsets your core beliefs about yourself.



Funny how liberals advocate for diversity until somebody comes along who doesn't agree with them. Then they advocate for exile.

Thats the OP of this thread, the super rich plan on escaping, it would only make sense that thier sympathizers went with them, why would they choose to stick around if the poor ever rose up?

originally posted by: Jamie1
As you ponder an honest answer and your hateful rebuttal, give serious consideration to the question. How much would you pay somebody to walk your garbage out to the road and put it into a truck before it was cheaper and easier for you to do it yourself?

You'll find your answer defines value.

And the person who drives the truck? So now you're carting your garbage to the dump. And the administrative people that make sure people have trash service so that it doesn't pile up and create hazards? That gets more expensive without trash service, and more intrusive.

If you do that for yourself, what of the people who no longer have jobs? How much is it worth to you to not have unemployment issues along with the crime that comes with it? How much will you pay in additional police to deal with that crime?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Jamie1
As you ponder an honest answer and your hateful rebuttal, give serious consideration to the question. How much would you pay somebody to walk your garbage out to the road and put it into a truck before it was cheaper and easier for you to do it yourself?

You'll find your answer defines value.

And the person who drives the truck? So now you're carting your garbage to the dump. And the administrative people that make sure people have trash service so that it doesn't pile up and create hazards? That gets more expensive without trash service, and more intrusive.

If you do that for yourself, what of the people who no longer have jobs? How much is it worth to you to not have unemployment issues along with the crime that comes with it? How much will you pay in additional police to deal with that crime?

Let's stick with one subject at a time.

How much would you pay out of your own pocket to have somebody walk your garbage from your house to the road?