Premier Rock Forum

steve wrote:So poor people wouldn't be poor if they valued the right things?

The whole argument here hinges on how you define poverty. How exactly do you define poverty?

matthew wrote:If by desperately poor you mean people who are seriously malnourished and/or homeless, in this country you'll be hard-pressed to find people like this, and I know you've probably been around this country a bit (as I have too).

As long as you don't look at post-hurricane Louisiana.

Anyway I think by "desperately poor" Steve and others mean "desperate" enough to work for the kind of wage structure you propose. Desperate enough to be taken advantage of. Do people really need to be homeless before they deserve support from our government?

clocker bob wrote:

matthew wrote:

clocker bob wrote: What argument is this long WSJ paste even supposed to be in support of?

I was addressing Steve's arrogance with the Journal article. I think that was obvious. After all, Wal-Mart pretty much stands for everything reviled by liberals and leftists.....right, bob?

And what does the WSJ article tell us about Wal Mart that is supposed to change our opinion of that company? I ask you again- do you know anything about the economy of Oaxaca? It's possibly the poorest state in Mexico. Areas with largely mestizo populations are treated even more poorly by the ruling Castillians. Oaxacans have been trying to get rid of their corrupt governor for a year. General strikes and rioting have been ongoing.

There is only one 'Wal Mart' style success story. It follows these lines.

NY TIMES 2003 wrote:Wal-Mart's power is changing Mexico in the same way it changed the economic landscape of the United States, and with the same formula: cut prices relentlessly, pump up productivity, pay low wages, ban unions, give suppliers the tightest possible profit margins and sell everything under the sun for less than the guy next door.

Wal Mart contributed substantially to the election campaign of Calderon ( a fraudulent victory ).

So, what does an article by the WSJ celebrating a Wal Mart store in Oaxaca tell Steve about his 'arrogance' or his leftism? Break down the lesson we can take from your article, please.

You got a point in there somewhere? Besides, I can rarely read the Times without a chuckle anymore. Use a more credible source.

MY point is that free, global competitive markets (a core tenent of conservatism and an anathema to liberals and other leftists) WORK, though Albini seems to think that lifting people up by their bootstraps and giving them purchasing power through these is mean and evil. He'd rather just use his all-knowing, all feeling, all sensing intellect and heart to redistribute wealth willy-nilly and by fiat. Oh I know that's harsh and inflammatory sounding, but I can think of no other way to describe his mindset. It's actually totalitarianism in the larval stage....the road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they used to say.

And by the way...."road to hell..." is a figure of speech, in case some of you people think I'm giving a good ol' fundie god-damming to Steve.

I think keeping a certain part of the population poor and unemployed is in the interests the upper class/big industrialists. it's easier to browbeat the labor if you can threaten them with the loss of their livelihood.
also: who would join the army if everybody had a nice job or had access to education?

I'm sure we all could keep our living standard by working 3 days a week if we didn't have to generate billions of dollar to make those rich idiots even richer.

2 percent of the world population owes more than 50 percent of the capital. we're just their servants.

Boombats wrote:

matthew wrote:If by desperately poor you mean people who are seriously malnourished and/or homeless, in this country you'll be hard-pressed to find people like this, and I know you've probably been around this country a bit (as I have too).

As long as you don't look at post-hurricane Louisiana.

Anyway I think by "desperately poor" Steve and others mean "desperate" enough to work for the kind of wage structure you propose.

But the question is "why are they allegedly desperate?" Are they, for example, mentally or physically disabled and unable to do work that pays better on one hand or on the other hand, for example, just plain lazy and unwilling to help themselves for whatever reason? You know the old saying about giving a man a fish, right? Well, if you keep giving a man fish every day, what incentive is he going to have to fish for himself (and more importantly, for HIS FELLOW MEN)?

matthew wrote:Genuine poverty is virtually nonexistent in this country

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 37 million people living in poverty in the United States as of 2005; a 12.6% poverty rate.

The poverty rate in 2005 for children under 18 (17.6 percent) remained higher than that of 18-to-64-year-olds (11.1 percent) and that of people 65 and older (10.1 percent). In 2005, the number in poverty increased for seniors 65 and older—3.6 million in 2005, up from 3.5 million in 2004.

Your callousness and pervasive ignorance are breathtaking.

matthew wrote:

steve wrote:So poor people wouldn't be poor if they valued the right things?

The whole argument here hinges on how you define poverty. How exactly do you define poverty?

Well, it's pretty simple. You don't start by looking for fly covered children with distended bellies. Just like you don't compare American wealthy to the wealthy of the Congo, neither do you compare American poverty to African poverty. You do it like this: does a full-time wage earner in the US economy earn enough to pay for an adequate standard of living without living off credit ? Adequate standard of living defined as: home, clothes, food, health care, transportation-private or public. In a country where the median per capita household income is approximately $45,000, a household that earns $20K is a houseold in poverty.

Add this to your long list of facts that you have run away from in this thread, matthew:

Once a worker performs his job well for 40 hours a week, his end of the bargain is completed. If his salary for those hours will only pay for a substandard living, then the onus for fixing that is completely on the managers of the economy. It is not his responsibility to get a different job. Menial labor will always be needed, and so therefore, payment for that labor should always be adequate. It is not his responsibility to work overtime or to not have children or to not have free time or to rely on charity like food stamps or welfare to bridge the gap. Poor humans are born with their odometers running, same as the rich, and they do not have to give more of their time to work than the richjust to live, or give it for artificially depressed wages. Somebody higher up the ladder must take less.

matthew wrote:You know the old saying about giving a man a fish, right? Well, if you keep giving a man fish every day, what incentive is he going to have to fish for himself (and more importantly, for HIS FELLOW MEN)?

Where is the "more importantly, for HIS FELLOW MEN" sentiment coming from?

matthew wrote: Well, if you keep giving a man fish every day, what incentive is he going to have to fish for himself (and more importantly, for HIS FELLOW MEN)?

Why don't you help out your fellow man right now by not being a fucksnout?

clocker bob wrote:In a country where the median per capita household income is approximately $45,000, a household that earns $20K is a houseold in poverty.

And the way up is: ambition, hard work and sacrifice, meaning self-sacrifice in the end. It's as simple as that, bob.