Why do you hate the poor?

a reply to: wantsome

Huh? I dont think it is like that. They are angry perhaps for same reasons.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
There are 2 paradigm shifts that I see as viable. One is discovering something we've yet to find: an economic system that has no economy.

They actually had something like that in early civilizations, but I'm not sure you'd want it (I wouldn't.) The king basically owns everything and relies on temples and officials to tax the people heavily and then distribute things back to them through the temples. There were few nobles (early Old Kingdom) and folks mostly grew and bartered what they had. They would work for a certain time period each year in the temple to qualify for food distribution, cloth, and other goods.

However, kings could die early and rulers might go against Ma'at... the system was no guarantee.

Innovation is basically the other end of the stick and results from competition as a rule.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous Homelessness is more of a psychological disorder than an actual economic problem.

Perhaps these just want to live more naturally, eschewing the material trappings of modern life, property ownership, desire for 'stuff'. In a world that measures success by material acquisition, 'disorder' is the only label that allows the morally blind to dismiss the suffering of those that have not made an active choice but have found themselves on their uppers due to (economic) factors beyond their control.

originally posted by: Byrd
They actually had something like that in early civilizations, but I'm not sure you'd want it (I wouldn't.) The king basically owns everything and relies on temples and officials to tax the people heavily and then distribute things back to them through the temples. There were few nobles (early Old Kingdom) and folks mostly grew and bartered what they had. They would work for a certain time period each year in the temple to qualify for food distribution, cloth, and other goods.

Still happens. Bedouin live like this. The sheik owns everything and when called, the slaves show up, do the work and receive their allotted share of the distribution. Rest of the time, the slaves live a nomadic life, eking an existence from the sheiks territory.

originally posted by: wantsome
$11k a year

You could make more money than that driving a semi. Not even long distance, but around your local area or town. I did it once, and I liked driving a semi. It was a challenge. After a week or so, not much more difficult than operating a car once you developed confidence.

Not as fun as being a rescue swimmer in the Coast Guard, but definitely more earning potential than lower enlisted ranks in the Coast Guard.

originally posted by: teapot

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous Homelessness is more of a psychological disorder than an actual economic problem.

Perhaps these just want to live more naturally, eschewing the material trappings of modern life, property ownership, desire for 'stuff'. In a world that measures success by material acquisition, 'disorder' is the only label that allows the morally blind to dismiss the suffering of those that have not made an active choice but have found themselves on their uppers due to (economic) factors beyond their control.

Then they need to think of a way to get that without someone else having to pay for it.

Maybe I consider it "natural" to sit on a couch and watch tv all day. is wrong if others dont want to donate to my early retirement?


As for "factors out of their control" do you ever notice how many Mexicans cross the border every year? nothing but the clothes on their back, sometimes in debt to the "coyote" who helped them cross?

If our economy really didnt allow you to work your way to a home, those people would starve.

I remember a time when I would buy Prada and Dolce and Gabanna shirts and jeans off ebay for like 5 to 15 dollars each. Normally one prada shirt would be 300 to 500 dollars, for reference. I am a master of taking 2 dollar Dollar General fake nails and making them look amazing. I thrift shop a LOT and got a brand new 3/4 length full leather trench coat for under 10 dollars.

Later on in life I had to utilize food stamps.

I wonder how many people judged me while wearing my 20 dollar Prada jeans and 4 dollar Prada shirt, 2 dollar professinally done looking fake dollar store nails, etc, assuming I was wearing 800 dollar pants and shirt and 50 dollar nail jobs. When in truth it cost me 26 dollars over times passing?

Moral: thrift stores and knock off fake designer label stores do exist. cant go juding peoples via labels when said labels could be fake as fake can be yet look legit. I used to borrow friends brand new vehicles to go food shopping here and there also. A good friend like sister wanted to give me her newest iphone because she was about to buy the literal newest one that had come out 7 months after she bought the one she wanted to give me. For free, to GIVE me. Can easily put a new sim card in from a pay as you go and get 100 minutes a month for 20 dolllars.

So techically, to other judgey people, I was using food stamps driving a 36k dollar car, with a 500 dollar mobile, wearing 800 dollar pants and shirt, with 50 dollar nails - but in reality it all cost me 26 dollars over times passing for the pants and shirt and fake 2 dollar press on nails.

Just saying.

a reply to: sarra1833

about half the population, statistically, are idiots and morons. With that in mind, you're better off not bothering yourself with what microcephalic idiots think. And even less with any who would actually say something.

originally posted by: sarra1833
I wonder how many people judged me while wearing my 20 dollar Prada jeans and 4 dollar Prada shirt, 2 dollar professinally done looking fake dollar store nails, etc, assuming I was wearing 800 dollar pants and shirt and 50 dollar nail jobs..

Many of them don't know. I see someone dressed nice I wouldn't know the difference if they shopped at TJ Max or high end shops at the Mall.

the obsessive pursuit of wealth is a pathological psychopathy, increasingly common. it is applauded and lauded.
obviously the poor have only themselves to blame.
greed trumps need every time.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5
obviously the poor have only themselves to blame.
.

That much is true. Anyone can join the military unless they have felonies or substance abuse problems. Even in the enlisted ranks you can make good money in the higher enlisted ranks. Attend college while you are in enlisted and you can go to officer candidate school and make even better money.

I wouldn't say desiring wealth or working hard towards that goals is evil. It's only evil if you go about achieving that goal as El Chapo did.

a reply to: Miracula2

clearly you missed the sarcasm in my comment. the poor actually have only the rich to blame. greed is destroying this planet. i despise the fanatical wealth obsessions of billionaires and the like. also the military is not a choice for anyone who doesn't wish to participate in humanity's rush to self-destruction. cannon fodder is not a job.

If you're worried about balance between poor and rich, then what you're really worried about is the balance between wages of unskilled workers, and wages of skilled workers.

Anyone with the right skills (and talent) can start a mega corporation. Sergy Brin and Larry Page, for example, could probably have started Google even if they had been a lot poorer than they were (so long as their poverty had not prevented them being able to get a good education.)

If unskilled workers make too little, however, then between the factors of poor nutrition, bad highschool experiences, and lack of a big college fund, their children won't be able to acquire enough education to become skilled.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
If you're worried about balance between poor and rich, then what you're really worried about is the balance between wages of unskilled workers, and wages of skilled workers.

That is not entirely true. There are many poor people that are skilled workers but lack the opportunity to utilise those skills because of a shortage of jobs available, and an unwillingness of an employer to even give somebody who cannot afford to spend money on their presentation a chance to demonstrate their skills.

Anyone with the right skills (and talent) can start a mega corporation. Sergy Brin and Larry Page, for example, could probably have started Google even if they had been a lot poorer than they were (so long as their poverty had not prevented them being able to get a good education.)

Neither of them would have been able to start a mega-corporation if they were homeless or unable to leave their current job without being homeless as a result. The irony is you don't even need a good education to be financially successful, you just require the ability to think, to tap into your sense of vision, to use your determination and have the opportunity to express your idea to the right people at the right time without being betrayed by anybody else in the process. Not easy, but it can be done.

If unskilled workers make too little, however, then between the factors of poor nutrition, bad highschool experiences, and lack of a big college fund, their children won't be able to acquire enough education to become skilled.

It's unlikely, but not impossible. The trouble is that even though their probability to change things is low, the only way the cycle will ever be broken is if they try to be the change that is needed and overcome the obstacles.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
If you're worried about balance between poor and rich, then what you're really worried about is the balance between wages of unskilled workers, and wages of skilled workers.

Beyond a basic level, skills and wages aren't correlated to each other at all. The highest wage people are usually only average at actually doing stuff. They get promoted in management while the higher skilled people are kept in the positions where they're best.

Most earnings potential in the US comes down not to skills, but to negotiating power. People who are better at negotiation (which is something that's rarely taught) tend to do much better in life.

originally posted by: Aazadan


Most earnings potential in the US comes down not to skills, but to negotiating power. People who are better at negotiation (which is something that's rarely taught) tend to do much better in life.

There is no need to overthink this. Negotiating is definitely a "skill".

Instead of "skilled" vs. "unskilled" I suppose I should say "those possessing rare and useful skills" vs. "those possessing common or useless skills and/or no skills".

From the market's perspective "useful" means whatever commands the highest price. Entrepreneurs often display a skill set that can't be taught in college (or not very well anyway.) Bill Gates and Paul Allen, for example, weren't the greatest programmers in world history. Just very smart business people who saw potential where others did not.

But if you have a PhD in social work, that doesn't necessarily mean you have "rare and useful" skills. They are certainly useful in some sense, but there are way too many people out there competing for those jobs.

Come to think of it, asking "us" why we hate the poor is about as effective as asking the poor why they hate the rich and why the rich hate the poor. Doubt it's going to solve anything when the answers to the last two are so glaringly obvious, but the assumption that the original question is even a valid question (when it does not specify who its audience is) is stupid.

I don't think the Rich hate the poor.

The middle class hates the poor. To the middle class, the poor look like lazy stragglers who gobble up tax money and thereby increase the middle class' tax burden. (Everyone knows the rich don't pay taxes anyway.)

The rich, in turn, hate the middle class.

The poor hate the rich.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I don't think the Rich hate the poor.

Why would anyone? What harm do the poor cause to rich people?

The middle class hates the poor. To the middle class, the poor look like lazy stragglers who gobble up tax money and thereby increase the middle class' tax burden. (Everyone knows the rich don't pay taxes anyway.)

You mean the middle class hate the ones who prevent them from becoming rich? I could see a reason to resent them, I mean hey I would LOVE to be rich as well! But hate is a strong word. It sort of implies you do not care about their interests for no particular reason.

The rich, in turn, hate the middle class.

The ones who ensue the rich remain rich? That's a big jump in logic from you last argument. (Are you sue you have't been conditioned to think this because its easier to blame the rich than look at reality?)

The poor hate the rich.

The poor hate everyone (even themselves, but stick together to make the best of a bad situation.) The poor don't hate the rich because they have lots of money, they hate the rich because they have money. As do the middle class. The have-nots always hate the haves - whether they are haves or havelots.

You can try to swing things all you like, but without a middle class you cannot have the rich or the poor. They are the most important aspect of a viable socioeconomic structure. Unfortunately, you have overlooked the real villains. They don't care about any of the above groups and more importantly, they don't need to. Have a think about it and see if you can follow me.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I don't think the Rich hate the poor.

Why would anyone? What harm do the poor cause to rich people?

The middle class hates the poor. To the middle class, the poor look like lazy stragglers who gobble up tax money and thereby increase the middle class' tax burden. (Everyone knows the rich don't pay taxes anyway.)

You mean the middle class hate the ones who prevent them from becoming rich? I could see a reason to resent them, I mean hey I would LOVE to be rich as well! But hate is a strong word. It sort of implies you do not care about their interests for no particular reason.

I don't mean "hate" in the strong sense. More just like resentment.

The middle class likes its disposable income. If they have to pay 40%+ in taxes, then they start to find all they can really afford on their middle class salary is health insurance, a nicer car, and a house payment. ..... which is not what they went to college hoping to achieve.

The goal of getting into the middle class is not to be a "wage slave". Sure, you still have to work, but you're hoping to make more than the minimum to keep your expenses covered.

Furthermore, dumping money on the poor class drives up the price of things (increases demand, but not necessarily supply).
If every poor person has enough money to rent an apartment in a nice part of town, then apartment owners will likely seize the opportunity to raise rents.

Higher education is a fine example of something that got lots of funding, and then skyrocketed its own costs.

The rich, in turn, hate the middle class.

The ones who ensue the rich remain rich? That's a big jump in logic from you last argument. (Are you sue you have't been conditioned to think this because its easier to blame the rich than look at reality?)

From a legislation point of view, the kinds of laws the rich want in place aren't always the same kind of laws the middle class wants in place.

The very richest of the rich are the ones who can buy and sell influence in Washington DC. They own media outlets, and defense contractors, or pharmaceutical companies.

If the middle class vanished tomorrow, they would have total control over the whole political system. As the middle class has gotten weaker over the last few decades. media has gotten less and less driven by a desire to keep itself credible, and more about pursuing agendas.

The poor hate the rich.

The poor hate everyone (even themselves, but stick together to make the best of a bad situation.) The poor don't hate the rich because they have lots of money, they hate the rich because they have money. As do the middle class. The have-nots always hate the haves - whether they are haves or havelots.

You can try to swing things all you like, but without a middle class you cannot have the rich or the poor. They are the most important aspect of a viable socioeconomic structure. Unfortunately, you have overlooked the real villains. They don't care about any of the above groups and more importantly, they don't need to. Have a think about it and see if you can follow me.

The poor are, for the most part, not smart enough to know who to hate.

The rich don't mind them. They pose no threat, so letting the poor hate the rich does nothing to affect the rich, but provides a useful ally in the effort to gut the middle class (by tricking the poor into mistaking upper middle class for "rich" when tax laws are being made. )



The middle class is the most important class of all, though. The biggest difference between a "first world" and a "third world" country is the degree to which they have a strong middle class.