Exploiting the Poor

[TheBear]

It might be ethically nice but it isn't realistic. There needs to be serious education/training done for the poor and whatever minimum wage is, it needs to be more than a subsistence wage. The only difference that you could perhaps establish in minimum wage is part time vs full time.

The problem with this approach is that it is emotional, short-sighted and shallow, and does not address many other deeper and long-term questions.

Take an insightful long look at the following questions. Look at them individually, then collectively. Only then will you get a deeper sense of where I'm coming from.

How is it ethical that I pay one employee more than another, (doing the exact same job), simply because one employee has a family to raise, and another does not? Should I pay a new hire who has a family to raise, more than a single employee who has been loyal and productive in my company for, say, 5 years? 2 years? Should employers be in the business of keeping track of their employees' family status and personal expenses? Should a single person get a raise when they get married? Should employees get a raise each time a new baby is born into the family? Should the pay structure in my company be based on how many are in the employee's family? Are those who have families to raise, entitled to more weekly hours than those single employees who are just as productive for my company?

 

[praying]

The problem with this approach is that it is emotional, short-sighted and shallow, and does not address many other deeper and long-term questions.

Let's not mince words just give me a big red F professor.

So you disagree?

How is it ethical that I pay one employee more than another, (doing the exact same job), simply because one employee has a family to raise, and another does not?

Okay I see you misunderstood, when I said "ethically nice" and hindsight being what it is that was the wrong word, I meant that would be really nice if you could pay people what they needed based on their family situations. Develop some sort of actuarial table that determined the levels from single to say a family of 10. Sounds nice but that would require much altruism on the part of every member of society and we know that isn't happening and the from a business side, businesses could never calculate their payroll expenses because it would be constantly in flux based on the demographic of its' current employees.

So all that being said we are back to the poor and how to help them. Also you still haven't explained how Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson exploit the poor by earning money from speaking engagements to discuss these issues.

 

[TheBear]

Let's not mince words professor just give me a big red F professor.

LOL!!

Okay I see you misunderstood, when I said "ethically nice" and hindsight being what it is that was the wrong word, I meant that would be really nice if you could pay people what they needed based on their family situations. Develop some sort of actuarial table that determined the levels from single to say a family of 10. Sounds nice but that would require much altruism on the part of every member of society and we know that isn't happening and the from a business side, businesses could never calculate their payroll expenses because it would be constantly in flux based on the demographic of its' current employees.

It sounds like you subscribe to Marxism. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Is that about right?

So all that being said we are back to the poor and how to help them. Also you still haven't explained how Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson exploit the poor by earning money from speaking engagements to discuss these issues.

Yes I have. Take a look at all my posts in this thread.

 

[praying]

It sounds like you subscribe to Marxism. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Is that about right?

No, but it sounds nice you have to admit., but sounding like a good idea and it being a realistic idea are more often than not two entirely different matters.

Take for instance Dennis Kucinich did you ever read his platform, sounded great but this is the real world and we have to work within the confines of this reality not the one we wish was here.

Yes I have. Take a look at all my posts in this thread.

Well let me just take a stroll back through the posts and see if I can find the definitve answer.

 

[Fineous_Reese]

So all that being said we are back to the poor and how to help them. Also you still haven't explained how Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson exploit the poor by earning money from speaking engagements to discuss these issues.

if i may jump in with a quote from my favorite president

"The war on poverty created a great new upper-middle class of bureaucrats that found they had a fine career as long as they could keep enough needy people there to justify their existence." --Ronald Reagan

 

[Fineous_Reese]

my connection is slow today so i'm not going back to pull quotes but i hope the folks that are upset about jobs being exported are not the same folks that want the minimum wage raised...

 

[kermit]

Your wrong kermit on your opinion about the Dems trying to "reduce" the number of
people on welfare.

If it wasn't for giving money to everyone, as here in California the welfare state, then the dems wouldn't get any votes at all.

Who is pushing for Illegals getting drivers license in California? Dem's.

Who opened 2 offices in L.A., funded by the California taxpayers to teach Illegals who make it to this country, where they can get "FREE" benefits, etc... from our government and the Legal citizens of this country? Dems.

I don't agree with the current President selling out his country, the military, and the legal citizens of this country to Mexico, terrorists, and whom ever he feels like selling us out to.

Just goes to show you that democrats (Clinton and his selling of top secrets to the Chinese and Bush selling out our country and going against the laws of this land) and republicans are not really much apart.

God Bless.

You are making the mistake of trying to judge motives rather than looking at actions. The Dems are trying to expand the programs that would help people to get off of welfare. The Reps oppose them. Without judging motives it's clear that the Dems' actions are trying to get people off of welfare while the Reps' actions are trying to keep them there.

You have to look at what people do rather than what you think they think. But then that's what Reps have to do if they want to hold any party allegience. The RNC has built an image that is based upon fantasy rather than the reality of what they do and have done. They expand gov't when they're in power yet they still concider themselves the part of small gov't.

As far was CA being a welfare state I suggest you research that a little more. CA pays more in taxes than it receives. It is, by definition, a working state. Nearly all of the red states (all except 1) are by definition welfare states. I find it humorous that Reps want to eliminate the very program that keeps food on their plates.

 

[Fineous_Reese]

As far was CA being a welfare state I suggest you research that a little more. CA pays more in taxes than it receives. It is, by definition, a working state. Nearly all of the red states (all except 1) are by definition welfare states. I find it humorous that Reps want to eliminate the very program that keeps food on their plates.

if that's true it would indeed be interesting to see how the red states improve when weaned from the nipple of big gov't.

 

[aragorn]

It seems like none of you can see past the realities of the system you're stuck in that enslaves us all, except the very rich.

It's like your debate revolves around whether it's better for the poor to be given welfare, or for them to be exploited in low-paid jobs, or better themselves by learning a trade.

But really you should be discussing why it is that we live in a world where it's increasingly impossible to have a good life, without having a reasonable income. Try to imagine past the way our world is, to imagine a better world, whose life-blood is not money but something that actually has a real value.

And why does no-one ever answer this point? If the earth and everything in it belongs to God, then all human claims of ownership are legal fictions, and the rent demanded by those who pretend to be owners is just theft?

 

[DJ B.K.]

It seems like none of you can see past the realities of the system you're stuck in that enslaves us all, except the very rich.

It's like your debate revolves around whether it's better for the poor to be given welfare, or for them to be exploited in low-paid jobs, or better themselves by learning a trade.

But really you should be discussing why it is that we live in a world where it's increasingly impossible to have a good life, without having a reasonable income. Try to imagine past the way our world is, to imagine a better world, whose life-blood is not money but something that actually has a real value.

And why does no-one ever answer this point? If the earth and everything in it belongs to God, then all human claims of ownership are legal fictions, and the rent demanded by those who pretend to be owners is just theft?

We live in that type of world because of the way people are. We are not all giving and not poerfect in general and it is a lot easier to find the best way for the government to help the poor than change the way people act.

 

[arnegrim]

You are making the mistake of trying to judge motives rather than looking at actions. The Dems are trying to expand the programs that would help people to get off of welfare. The Reps oppose them. Without judging motives it's clear that the Dems' actions are trying to get people off of welfare while the Reps' actions are trying to keep them there.

Wrong... What programs have the Dems introduced to get people off of welfare?

 

[Vylo]

Wrong... What programs have the Dems introduced to get people off of welfare?

Honestly, I can't think of any off the top of my head, so I will let others try to address this.

You cannot just throw money at this problem. I fully support welfare, but I think the programs have to be seriously altered in order to encourage upward mobility.

The object of welfare should not be to support these people on a long-term basis, but as a safety net that will catch, them, and then get them back on their OWN 2 feet again. It should focus on making them able to survive independently.

Many times I think that supporters of welfare lose sight of this.

 

[arnegrim]

[/font]

Honestly, I can't think of any off the top of my head, so I will let others try to address this.

You cannot just throw money at this problem. I fully support welfare, but I think the programs have to be seriously altered in order to encourage upward mobility.

The object of welfare should not be to support these people on a long-term basis, but as a safety net that will catch, them, and then get them back on their OWN 2 feet again. It should focus on making them able to survive independently.

Many times I think that supporters of welfare lose sight of this.

 

[aragorn]

We live in that type of world because of the way people are. We are not all giving and not poerfect in general and it is a lot easier to find the best way for the government to help the poor than change the way people act.

Well it seems to me that the main problem is that the law supports unlimited absentee landlordism.

Ok, you can't change the behaviour of some greedy owners, but, you could stop enforcing their bogus ownership claims.