tolerating unequal outcomes

[whatbogsends]

The problem with that situation is the condition you find yourself in prior to encountering someone willing to offer you a job. It is not the employers fault that you are deperate and have no skills. You got yourself into that position. So you do what everyone has do do in that position, what I had to do in fact, take a job that doesnt pay very well and one you dont like and use it as a stepping stone to a better one.

Often, by being born into that position. How absolutely foolish of you to be born into a poor family - you should have planned better!

 

[MachZer0]

Often, by being born into that position. How absolutely foolish of you to be born into a poor family - you should have planned better!

That's the beauty of America. Being born into poverty doesn't mean you have to stay in poverty.

 

[whatbogsends]

That's the beauty of America. Being born into poverty doesn't mean you have to stay in poverty.

That's the beauty of arguing from an emotive rather than fact-based position. You don't actually need to be correct in order to think you've put forth a sound rebuttal.

Statistically, a the economic class that a child is born into is the single highest predictor of their own financial result. Class mobility has been decreasing in the US for the last 30 years, and statistically, has one of the lowest social mobility rates in first world countries.

Despite frequent references to the United States as a classless society, about 62 percent of Americans (male and female) raised in the top fifth of incomes stay in the top two-fifths, according to research by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Similarly, 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all

Those born to the middle class have about an equal chance of moving up or down the income ladder, according to the Economic Mobility Project. But those born to black middle-class families are much more likely than their white counterparts to fall in rank. The children of the rich and poor, meanwhile, are less mobile than the middle class's. More than 40% of those Americans born in the bottom quintile remain stuck there as adults.

Social mobility and inequality: Upper bound | The Economist

 

[lordbt]

That's the beauty of arguing from an emotive rather than fact-based position. You don't actually need to be correct in order to think you've put forth a sound rebuttal.

Funny you should say that since your rebuttal to my post was the emotive one, not Machs response to yours.

Statistically, a the economic class that a child is born into is the single highest predictor of their own financial result. Class mobility has been decreasing in the US for the last 30 years, and statistically, has one of the lowest social mobility rates in first world countries.

Do you have these statistics?

Despite frequent references to the United States as a classless society, about 62 percent of Americans (male and female) raised in the top fifth of incomes stay in the top two-fifths, according to

research by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Similarly, 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths.

Or, 35% born in the bottom fifth rise out of the botto two-fifths. Plus, what percentage of those who are born in the bottom fifth remain in the bottom fifth because they make poor choices like teenage pregnancy, out of wedlock births and dropping out of school?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all

Those born to the middle class have about an equal chance of moving up or down the income ladder, according to the Economic Mobility Project. But those born to black middle-class families are much more likely than their white counterparts to fall in rank. The children of the rich and poor, meanwhile, are less mobile than the middle class's. More than 40% of those Americans born in the bottom quintile remain stuck there as adults.

Same questions as above.

 

[MachZer0]

That's the beauty of arguing from an emotive rather than fact-based position. You don't actually need to be correct in order to think you've put forth a sound rebuttal.

Statistically, a the economic class that a child is born into is the single highest predictor of their own financial result. Class mobility has been decreasing in the US for the last 30 years, and statistically, has one of the lowest social mobility rates in first world countries.

Despite frequent references to the United States as a classless society, about 62 percent of Americans (male and female) raised in the top fifth of incomes stay in the top two-fifths, according to research by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Similarly, 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all

Those born to the middle class have about an equal chance of moving up or down the income ladder, according to the Economic Mobility Project. But those born to black middle-class families are much more likely than their white counterparts to fall in rank. The children of the rich and poor, meanwhile, are less mobile than the middle class's. More than 40% of those Americans born in the bottom quintile remain stuck there as adults.

Social mobility and inequality: Upper bound | The Economist

None of that refutes the fact that being born in poverty doesn't mean you have to stay in poverty. However, government programs that remove incentive go a long way in keeping people in those circumstances.

 

[JustABit]

And from where would this food come? Who would provide it? It is important to point out here principle behind my statement before I make it. I support as a primary the concept of individual rights, and believe that the proper role of the state is to defend those rights. The state cannot rob Peter to pay Paul without robbing Peter. No matter how worthy the outcome, robbing Peter is theft and a violation by the state of Peters rights. So as much as I may wish all children to be fed, I cannot support the idea of the state accomplishing this goal through force and rights violations. To paraphrase the Bible, you dont do evil that good amy come.

Is your argument that food doesn't exist in nature? Let me rephrase the right, then. Instead of the "right to be free from starvation", would you say people have the "right to be free from having starvation imposed upon them by others"?

Government force is moral in the same manner that your use of force against another man would be considered moral--as an act of defense or a response to the initiation of force. It is immoral, for example, for a man to stroll into a kindergarten and start shooting children, but moral for someone to put a bullet between his eyes.

And you don't think a claim of ownership on nature is an initial act of force against others?

If you're as against force as you claim to be, then surely you must be against industrial development? Or do you make a force exemption when it comes to pollution and other externalities?

*edit, Added series of questions. Why should I accept the above social contract. I have the means to protect mine and my own without government intervention. I assume I will be taxed for this 'service'. How do you justify this coercion. If individual liberty is your highest goal, why are you detracting from my individual liberty? Or is this a case where the individual rights of others trumps my individual liberty?

 

[JustABit]

None of that refutes the fact that being born in poverty doesn't mean you have to stay in poverty. However, government programs that remove incentive go a long way in keeping people in those circumstances.

"None of that refutes the fact that being tossed into the ocean doesn't mean you need to stay in the ocean. However, government programs that give people life jackets go a long way in keeping people in the ocean."

 

[MachZer0]

"None of that refutes the fact that being tossed into the ocean doesn't mean you need to stay in the ocean. However, government programs that give people life jackets go a long way in keeping people in the ocean."

Government programs have a tendency to be like throwing someone a life jacket then leaving them to fend for themselves.

America is full of stories of poverty stricken people who made their way out with no government help. A lot of it is due to attitude, and not the attitude that tells you the government owes you a handout

 

[bricklayer]

"None of that refutes the fact that being tossed into the ocean doesn't mean you need to stay in the ocean. However, government programs that give people life jackets go a long way in keeping people in the ocean."

It is an injustice to make the poor comfortable with their poverty.

 

[JCSr]

It is an injustice to make the poor comfortable with their poverty.

I agree! Let's let them become homeless and hungry and make them as uncomfortable and we can. Then they may meet their maker faster and do away with the poverty.

 

[MachZer0]

I agree! Let's let them become homeless and hungry and make them as uncomfortable and we can. Then they may meet their maker faster and do away with the poverty.

Hunger motivates

 

[JustABit]

I agree! Let's let them become homeless and hungry and make them as uncomfortable and we can. Then they may meet their maker faster and do away with the poverty.

I propose, because we don't want people to be comfortable with their poverty, that every day we go around and poke all of the poor people with sharp sticks. This will surely motivate them out of their poverty.

 

[JustABit]

Government programs have a tendency to be like throwing someone a life jacket then leaving them to fend for themselves.

Therefore, they are better off without life jackets. Gotcha.

 

[MachZer0]

Therefore, they are better off without life jackets. Gotcha.

They might be. Without the life jacket of government assistance, they'll need to swim on their own.

 

[JustABit]

They might be. Without the life jacket of government assistance, they'll need to swim on their own.

Yep. I knew that argument would come. "Lifejackets interfere with people and learning how to swim, so we shouldn't give them lifejackets."

 

[MachZer0]

Yep. I knew that argument would come. "Lifejackets interfere with people and learning how to swim, so we shouldn't give them lifejackets."

If you want to learn to swim, you have to take the life jacket off

 

[Harpuia]

Hunger motivates

It motivates them to do something alright, just not what you're thinking.

 

[MachZer0]

It motivates them to do something alright, just not what you're thinking.

Proverbs 16:26 A worker’s appetite works for him,
For his hunger urges him on. (NASB)

 

[bricklayer]

I agree! Let's let them become homeless and hungry and make them as uncomfortable and we can. Then they may meet their maker faster and do away with the poverty.

It is so important for us to open these topics. For example, the above would have never occurred to me. My mind just doesn't go that way.
It's my intention to motivate the (mostly) young men I minister with to not settle for the exculpatory. I encourage them to look at things in ways that are empowering not exculpatory.

 

[JustABit]

If you want to learn to swim, you have to take the life jacket off

Which of course makes perfect sense if a person is tossed into the ocean. "Hey, I know you like your lifejacket, but you need to learn how to swim. So we're taking it away. Good luck!"