Makers -vs- Takers: not what you think

[jkapp]

Jul 18, 2013 13:52:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 18, 2013 13:15:59 GMT -5 jkapp said:

And many people that argue for a vague "living wage" never quite mention the idea of earning that wage, only being paid it. 

this is a bit off the subject (your fault, not mine), but do you think that there is any wage that is "beneath human dignity"?

Yes..whatever people won't work for.  But I don't quite see how a wage defines a person's dignity in the first place.  Is someone more dignified because they make $50k a year?  Is someone working an $8/hr job undignified for doing so?  I don't see the correlation.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 18, 2013 14:09:32 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jul 18, 2013 13:52:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is a bit off the subject (your fault, not mine), but do you think that there is any wage that is "beneath human dignity"?

Yes..whatever people won't work for. 

that is a non answer.  want me to say why, or is it not obvious to you?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 18, 2013 13:55:11 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jul 18, 2013 13:51:11 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I think it depends on what kind of rich we're talking about.  More often than not, drivers of luxury cars are not balance sheet rich.  They're income statement rich.  Without knowing anything but the make of car, and nothing about the drivers- the study can't conclude anything save for what it set out to conclude: the so-called "rich" feel entitled, or that the rules don't apply to them.  It's a non-study about nothing.

Umm, paul ... it's not all about the BMW.  There are a number of studies and a number of paradigms.  There are even <gasp> <choke> articles out there you can <gulp>read!  The entirety of the subject under discussion is not contained in the BMW.   Honest.  It's not.

Yeah- I just don't have a curiosity about how 'entitled' the rich may or may not feel.  I have a singular question about rich people I meet:  did you earn it?  If you contributed to a political campaign, started a solar company that ended up getting over $300 million in taxpayer funding, you drove the company into the ground but kept a nice chunk of change for yourself- I'm not impressed.  To those that did earn it, I only care to know one thing: how?

[Angel!]

Jul 18, 2013 13:34:11 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

To me the study is more about human nature than class. If you remove class I think we can all agree (and now that I'm typing we can all agree on P&M I realize I'm about to make myself look stupid) that it is human nature to want to take credit for every good thing that goes our way and ignore or downplay any advantages that we can't control which helped us get there. So it does make complete sense to me that rich people, over time, take all the credit for their success and forget or ignore any advantages they had that contributed.

Actually I was listening to an NPR piece several months back where a researcher interviewed a bunch of 'wealthy' people and asked them how they became successful. 

Most of the time, the wealthy person claimed his/her success was 100% as a result of his hard work and motivation.

However, when she asked specific questions about how they got their first job out of college, or how they landed that first big project, or who their first clients were, 70% of the time it was someone they knew - or their parents knew - or someone they went to school with, or a friend's parent who gave them that big opportunity. 

So over time they came to believe they were completely responsible for their success in life, when actually, they had a lot of help. 

I do think that's human nature - most of us want to take credit for the good things that happen to us, and overlook all the help we got along the way.

I was just thinking the same thing. This study certainly puts a different perspective on all those surveys that show rich people believe most of their success comes from their own hard work & poor people think it is just luck.

Maybe it isn't this differing view that determines whether one has the ability & mindset to become rich (as I always assumed), but rather the reverse. When you become rich you mindset on the question switches & you start to believe it was all your own doing.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 18, 2013 14:02:34 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

Oh and btw, I am not rich, nor I drive a BMW but I REALLY don't like stopping for pedestrians AND if I am offered free candy - well, let's just say I am not shy about helping myself.  So, what does that prove?

  I'm sure to some people we're rich.  I don't think we're even close.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 18, 2013 14:09:32 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Is someone more dignified because they make $50k a year?  Is someone working an $8/hr job undignified for doing so?  I don't see the correlation.

clearly.  let me try with an example:

SHOULD an employer be able to pay someone $0.12/hr to hire someone in the US?

i think the honest answer is YES, according to you.  that would be consistent with all of your posts.  i won't criticize that response, but i do have a follow up question.

[jkapp]

Jul 18, 2013 14:13:00 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 18, 2013 14:09:32 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Yes..whatever people won't work for. 

that is a non answer.  want me to say why, or is it not obvious to you?

How is an answer a non-answer...or is it just the fact that it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 18, 2013 14:14:08 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 18, 2013 13:55:11 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Umm, paul ... it's not all about the BMW.  There are a number of studies and a number of paradigms.  There are even <gasp> <choke> articles out there you can <gulp>read!  The entirety of the subject under discussion is not contained in the BMW.   Honest.  It's not.

Yeah- I just don't have a curiosity about how 'entitled' the rich may or may not feel. 

i do.  do you feel entitled, Paul? 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

do you think that there is any wage that is "beneath human dignity"?

Yes, and typically it's people who regard WORK as beneath their dignity that earn it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 18, 2013 14:15:31 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jul 18, 2013 14:13:00 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that is a non answer.  want me to say why, or is it not obvious to you?

How is an answer a non-answer...or is it just the fact that it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 18, 2013 14:15:31 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jul 18, 2013 14:13:00 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that is a non answer.  want me to say why, or is it not obvious to you?

How is an answer a non-answer...or is it just the fact that it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear?

no, it is a non-answer, because the question has to do with dignity, NOT what a person will "accept".  since you are not getting it, let me explain it.

if you are in horrific, degrading circumstances- you might accept something that is beneath your dignity simply to survive, or to avoid dying, or whatever.  dismissing the "beneath the dignity" part of the question doesn't make your answer an answer.  it makes it a non-answer.

now, if you don't think work and dignity have anything to do with one another, then that would explain your response.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 18, 2013 14:18:28 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

do you think that there is any wage that is "beneath human dignity"?

Yes, and typically it's people who regard WORK as beneath their dignity that earn it.

like Romney?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 18, 2013 14:19:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 18, 2013 14:15:31 GMT -5 jkapp said:

How is an answer a non-answer...or is it just the fact that it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear?

no, not that.  seriously, Paul.  it is a non-answer.  people will do all kinds of degrading stuff.  that doesn't mean that the degrading stuff doesn't exist.

edit: i DID offer to explain why, btw.  you both ignored that.

[jkapp]

Jul 18, 2013 14:15:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 18, 2013 14:09:32 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Is someone more dignified because they make $50k a year?  Is someone working an $8/hr job undignified for doing so?  I don't see the correlation.

clearly.  let me try with an example:

SHOULD an employer be able to pay someone $0.12/hr to hire someone in the US?

i think the honest answer is YES, according to you.  that would be consistent with all of your posts.  i won't criticize that response, but i do have a follow up question.

If the employer can find someone willing to work for that, why not? (In fact, there are self-employed people who make about that or less each year).  I've worked with a few people that were worth about that much for their work.

Here's a question for you:  is the value of someone working a cash register or stocking a shelf worth $37k a year?

[jkapp]

Jul 18, 2013 14:19:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 18, 2013 14:15:31 GMT -5 jkapp said:

How is an answer a non-answer...or is it just the fact that it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear?

no, it is a non-answer, because the question has to do with dignity, NOT what a person will "accept".  since you are not getting it, let me explain it.

if you are in horrific, degrading circumstances- you might accept something that is beneath your dignity simply to survive, or to avoid dying, or whatever.  dismissing the "beneath the dignity" part of the question doesn't make your answer an answer.  it makes it a non-answer.

now, if you don't think work and dignity have anything to do with one another, then that would explain your response.

I said I don't see how PAY and diginity are correlated in any way...you didn't ask if WORK was beneath someone's dignity - you specifically mention a low wage.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 18, 2013 14:25:05 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jul 18, 2013 14:15:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

clearly.  let me try with an example:

SHOULD an employer be able to pay someone $0.12/hr to hire someone in the US?

i think the honest answer is YES, according to you.  that would be consistent with all of your posts.  i won't criticize that response, but i do have a follow up question.

If the employer can find someone willing to work for that, why not?

that is a separate question.  and again, willingness to work for it is not part of the question.  omitting that, is this a YES?

(In fact, there are self-employed people who make about that or less each year). 

there are people in sweatshops that make about 2-3x that, as well.  but unlike the self employed, they don't have any savings.

I've worked with a few people that were worth about that much for their work.

actually, i think this answers the question better than your "if they are willing to work for it" BS, does.  thanks

here is my followup question: if you know for a fact that this wage will result in them either resorting to crime or becoming welfare recipients just to survive, are you in any position to criticize that/those fact/s?

Here's a question for you:  is the value of someone working a cash register or stocking a shelf worth $37k a year?

we are getting too far off the subject, imo.  i would be happy to answer that on another thread, if you want to start one.

[Deleted]

i think we are all going to have different views on this

and it mainly depends on the people we have actually met and worked for

if your experience was with a silver spoon type, you may think one way

if your experience is with someone who worked their way up from the bottom, you may have a completely different perspective

trying to classify all rich, or all poor into one box is impossible to me

as i posted earlier...the silver spoon types are entitled assholes for the most part

the ones that got there from the bottom usually are far different

[djAdvocate]

Jul 18, 2013 14:30:32 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

i think we are all going to have different views on this

of course.  but the whole objective of this thread is to check your "views" against the outcome of this study, and reflect on it.  the study is going to presumably have more experience on this subject than any of us.  that is why we DO studies: to check our own anecdotal accounts and reasoning against a broader spectrum than our own.

[jkapp]

Jul 18, 2013 14:28:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 18, 2013 14:25:05 GMT -5 jkapp said:

If the employer can find someone willing to work for that, why not?

that is a separate question.  and again, willingness to work for it is not part of the question.  omitting that, is this a YES?

(In fact, there are self-employed people who make about that or less each year). 

there are people in sweatshops that make about 2-3x that, as well.  but unlike the self employed, they don't have any savings.

I've worked with a few people that were worth about that much for their work.

actually, i think this answers the question better than your "if they are willing to work for it" BS, does.  thanks

here is my followup question: if you know for a fact that this wage will result in them either resorting to crime or becoming welfare recipients just to survive, are you in any position to criticize that/those fact/s?

Here's a question for you:  is the value of someone working a cash register or stocking a shelf worth $37k a year?

we are getting too far off the subject, imo.  i would be happy to answer that on another thread, if you want to start one.

You know, ending as discussion when you don't want to answer a question is a very liberal trait (and the not the good liberal, either)

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 18, 2013 14:19:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 18, 2013 14:15:31 GMT -5 jkapp said:

How is an answer a non-answer...or is it just the fact that it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear?

no, it is a non-answer, because the question has to do with dignity, NOT what a person will "accept".  since you are not getting it, let me explain it.

if you are in horrific, degrading circumstances- you might accept something that is beneath your dignity simply to survive, or to avoid dying, or whatever.  dismissing the "beneath the dignity" part of the question doesn't make your answer an answer.  it makes it a non-answer.

now, if you don't think work and dignity have anything to do with one another, then that would explain your response.

Without knowing precisely how someone came to be in horrific, degrading circumstances- so that they might accept something that is beneath their dignity simply to survive, it's tough to answer the question.  If find that most people I know that are in these circumstances are fools.  The wise don't end up in these situations to start with.

Liberals are OBSESSED with:

1.  The idea that the game is rigged - 

2.  The idea that class mobility is a myth - www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-steven-friedman/class-mobility_b_1676931.html

3.  Equality of outcomes over equality of opportunity.

4.  The imaginary right to material comfort over the inherent natural rights of every human being.

5.  The zero sum game.

As a result, when liberals look at things like "income inequality" they never ask how it came to be, they instead propose to solve it through 'redistribution'.  According to their believe in the zero sum game, if I have a big piece of pie it's unfair because there's only so much pie.  If someone has a small piece, but I have a larger piece, the liberal never asks if it is possible for everyone to have a large piece of pie?  They never ask if it's possible to bake another pie?  They never ask, even if there is only one pie, who made the pie, and what I did for my large piece of it?  

In short, liberals basically live in a world of make believe where "Rich and Poor", "Powerful and Weak" take the place of "Good and Evil" (respectively).  They never ask why or how any of this came to be?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 18, 2013 14:32:16 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jul 18, 2013 14:28:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

we are getting too far off the subject, imo.  i would be happy to answer that on another thread, if you want to start one.

You know, ending as discussion when you don't want to answer a question is a very liberal trait (and the not the good liberal, either)

i had no idea you were even a liberal, let alone a bad one. 

[djAdvocate]

Jul 18, 2013 14:33:41 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 18, 2013 14:19:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

no, it is a non-answer, because the question has to do with dignity, NOT what a person will "accept".  since you are not getting it, let me explain it.

if you are in horrific, degrading circumstances- you might accept something that is beneath your dignity simply to survive, or to avoid dying, or whatever.  dismissing the "beneath the dignity" part of the question doesn't make your answer an answer.  it makes it a non-answer.

now, if you don't think work and dignity have anything to do with one another, then that would explain your response.

Without knowing precisely how someone came to be in horrific, degrading circumstances- so that they might accept something that is beneath their dignity simply to survive, it's tough to answer the question. 

it's not if you engage in philosophical discussions, often.  this is called a "thought experiment". 

[djAdvocate]

Jul 18, 2013 14:33:41 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 18, 2013 14:19:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Liberals are OBSESSED with:

please explain what this has to do with the OP.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 18, 2013 14:25:05 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jul 18, 2013 14:15:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

clearly.  let me try with an example:

SHOULD an employer be able to pay someone $0.12/hr to hire someone in the US?

i think the honest answer is YES, according to you.  that would be consistent with all of your posts.  i won't criticize that response, but i do have a follow up question.

If the employer can find someone willing to work for that, why not? (In fact, there are self-employed people who make about that or less each year).  I've worked with a few people that were worth about that much for their work.

Here's a question for you:  is the value of someone working a cash register or stocking a shelf worth $37k a year?

It's interesting that you bring up self-employed (and/or owners).  I once rehabbed a house, and sold it in about a three month time period.  This was the first project that I decided it might be a good idea to figure out what I was paying myself on instead of just what the net numbers were at the end of the project.  I clocked in and out each day I worked on it, I kept careful track of all the time I spent on the project- on the phone with contractors, shopping at the home improvement stores, sitting there waiting for the contractors to come-- all of it.  

Mind you- I had other projects going on, but I got an offer on the property and I took it.  I got a check at closing for $35,000, but much of that was just my own money coming back to me.  I actually made just shy of $3,000 (net after every expense) on it, and my labor was worth just shy of $2.00 an hour.  It was an early lesson in owning and operating my own business, and the whole dream of "being your own boss".  

And yet, I know people that would have done that same amount of work for to get a $3,000 check at the end of it, because $1,000 a month would mean A LOT to some people.  The work I did wasn't beneath MY dignity?  So, why, pray tell, is it ILLEGAL to pay someone else the same money to do the same exact work?  Why is it OK in the minds of the nutty left in this country for business owners to work for free, or take a loss while LEGALLY MANDATING that I MUST pay someone more than $2.00 an hour if they find it an agreeable number?

As you can see- with a $3,000 net, paying $2.00 an hour- I would have broken even paying someone else.  But making NO MONEY is not good enough for the moonbats in this country. They expect me to take a loss.

I've asked this question of numerous people and I've never had a satisfactory answer- in fact, most people just ignore the question.  But it's a serious question:  why is it OK for ME to work for $2.00 an hour (while, I might add- taking all the risk, and having $30K plus of my own money in the project) but someone else who couldn't manage the project, and whose only skill is slinging paint (if they can manage to show up on time) is 'entitled' to $8.00 an hour?  

Why not provide the same opportunity to others that's afforded to me?  To work for $2.00 an hour?  And, they wouldn't need any money out of pocket to get started, and it would be GUARANTEED. See, I gambled $30K plus of my own money for the privilege of working for $2.00 an hour and I didn't have any guarantees that I'd make anything.  I'm fine with paying a GUARANTEED hourly wage, I just don't like that people aren't free to choose- to negotiate their own rates.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 18, 2013 14:37:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 18, 2013 14:33:41 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Liberals are OBSESSED with:

please explain what this has to do with the OP.

Because the study was conducted with the aim of proving liberal dogma.  Nothing more, nothing less.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 18, 2013 14:21:18 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 18, 2013 14:18:28 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Yes, and typically it's people who regard WORK as beneath their dignity that earn it.

like Romney?

Please explain what Romney has to do with the OP?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 18, 2013 14:53:31 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 18, 2013 14:37:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

please explain what this has to do with the OP.

Because the study was conducted with the aim of proving liberal dogma.  Nothing more, nothing less.

totally false.  nothing more, nothing less.

what the study shows is that liberals are just as likely as conservatives to exhibit these traits.
you would know that if you got past the crosswalk part of the video.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 18, 2013 14:54:29 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 18, 2013 14:21:18 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

like Romney?

Please explain what Romney has to do with the OP?

everything, actually.  glad you asked.

[djAdvocate]

Paul, i knew this thread would bug the shit out of you, because it openly contests your dogma.  i was hoping that you might actually be able to loosen up enough to actually CONSIDER the conclusions of the study- but i have to admit, i had serious doubts.

now, having established the fact that you are not interested in the conclusions and are merely trolling my thread, can you please piss off so the rest of us can enjoy the discussion?

[happyhoix]

See, I gambled $30K plus of my own money for the privilege of working for $2.00 an hour and I didn't have any guarantees that I'd make anything.

 You decided to risk your money on real estate flipping. You gambled that you would get a nice pay out. You lost and got a very small pay off. That's what happens when you invest in real estate flipping. Your choice. 

Why not provide the same opportunity to others that's afforded to me?

But you aren't providing the same opportunity to the painter.

If you brought in your painter and told him you would pay him 2 bucks per hour and then a percentage of the windfall you're expecting to get back when you sell this house, that would be the same opportunity. He would be gambling, just like you, that the returns would be great. But you aren't offering any potential big payout. You want someone to work for you at an hourly rate -so you have to pay him the minimum hourly rate that the government has decided should be a minimum wage.

You take the risk, but you also get the reward. The painter gets no reward, only a paycheck. 

Really, this is not that hard to understand.