Poor rich people

Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
mistersloane said:
I don't think working is either though, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Well, I dunno - with a bit of luck I'll never have to rely on a rubbishy menial job to pay my bills and whatnot, but I suspect that even if I did, it probably wouldn't be as soul-crushingly demeaning as living on state handouts for ever and ever. I mean, whatever happened to the dignity of labour? (Ans.: it disappeared when McDonald's introduced the employee 'star' rating system...)

Your Disneyworld anecdote reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons, where Homer decides to try and become clinically obese for the disability benefits; he tries to ring the number, but the recorded voice says "Your fingers are too fat to pudh the buttons: please mash the keypad now..."
 
B

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
mistersloane said:
I don't think working is either though, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

I think that it's easy to forget the sheer uselessness you feel when being unemployed for a time (or when mixing up unemployment with v short-term temp work), when you finally do get a full-time job.

Having said that, the reason you might forget is that most jobs are crushingly montonous, and use such a small part of your brain that you might well forget about all the other parts :(

Plus, with jobs that are not customer-facing, there is rarely any incentive to be hard-working, as you still have to sit at your desk for 35/40 hours regardless of how productive you're being.

Still, there always the holidays to look forward to, eh?
 
east

east

Member
I was unemployed for three years after being made redundant. I spent my redundancy money on a second hand sampler and some other bits of equip and had a great time convincing myself I was gonna be the new Dillinja. Reality bit after three years so I ended up getting a job but I never once felt 'useless' the whole time I was on the dole. Looking back it was a great, if ultimately quite dillusional, three years.
 
B

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
east said:
I was unemployed for three years after being made redundant. I spent my redundancy money on a second hand sampler and some other bits of equip and had a great time convincing myself I was gonna be the new Dillinja. Reality bit after three years so I ended up getting a job but I never once felt 'useless' the whole time I was on the dole. Looking back it was a great, if ultimately quite dillusional, three years.
Click to expand...

Where were you living at the time, out of interest? I was in the same situation in terms of being made redundant; used my generous settlement to tide me over living frugally fgor six months, and then had to get temp work...living in London ain't cheap...
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
nomadologist said:
the worst are the extremely fat toddlers. that's just tragic.
Click to expand...

Yeah, when I see those I just think "what chance does the poor bastard stand?".
If you want to eat yourself to death as an adult, fine, but inflicting it on your kids is another thing entirely.
Also, you can't help but think that if the kid was underfed it'd be whisked away by social services in an instant - although there have been cases in the UK now of kids being taken into care because of neglect by overfeeding.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
it's really hard to get kids away from abusive parents in the us, unfortunately.
 
east

east

Member
baboon2004 said:
Where were you living at the time, out of interest? I was in the same situation in terms of being made redundant; used my generous settlement to tide me over living frugally fgor six months, and then had to get temp work...living in London ain't cheap...
Click to expand...

I was living in London but had my rent paid and all that for the time i was unemployed. Don't think I'd get away with it for that long these days.
 
M

mms

sometimes
baboon2004 said:
Where were you living at the time, out of interest? I was in the same situation in terms of being made redundant; used my generous settlement to tide me over living frugally fgor six months, and then had to get temp work...living in London ain't cheap...
Click to expand...

Temping is dreadful, from having a decent busy and responsible job, you earn half the money, are treated like crap with boring menial jobs, get to work at place that are managed by useless jokers, that's unless you have a really fast typing speed, in which case you might earn more being a secretary, that's if anyone will have you. Wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
 
R

ripley

Well-known member
nomadologist said:
it's really hard to get kids away from abusive parents in the us, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

that may be true. But fat =/= being abused.

it sounds like you're saying fat kids should be taken from their families and 're-educated' or something. or parents of fat kids don't love them.

also "getting kids away" usually means putting them in foster care. the stats there in re: abuse are not so good. dunno about fatness.. but overall quality of life may not be better.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
you're right...i don't htink they should really take fat kids away from their parents. but it does really bother me that adults do that to their children. because no one who is healthy and doesn't have a metabolic or other serious condition can get fat as a child without the help of whichever adult buys them food...
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
In defense of income inequality:

Income inequality is an effect. The cause is the difference in people's economic production. Criticizing income inequality is like complaining that a computer carries a higher price than a paper clip. Price reflects an object's market value--and the money someone earns reflects the market value of his work. There is no fixed, pre-existing glob of income that somehow oozes disproportionately into the pockets of the rich. Wealth is created. The top fifth of the population have ten times more income than the bottom fifth because they have produced ten times more.

In a statist system, people advance through government favors and at the expense of the genuinely deserving. But in a free, capitalist system, income inequality represents something good. It means that exceptional individuals are free to do their productive best, and to reap their rewards. Whenever a Bill Gates arises to make his fortune, the income disparity between top and bottom increases--but so does everyone's standard of living. If so, why shouldn't we welcome an inequality--including a widening inequality--in incomes? And, instead of apologizing for this phenomenon, why aren't our leaders denouncing the egalitarian enviers who want to level us all?​
 
swears

swears

preppy-kei
Funny you should mention that, vimothy. I was on the train the other day and that little man with the top hat and moustache from Monopoly was sitting there smoking a cigar and reading Capitalism Magazine.
 
B

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
vimothy said:
In defense of income inequality:

Income inequality is an effect. The cause is the difference in people's economic production. Criticizing income inequality is like complaining that a computer carries a higher price than a paper clip. Price reflects an object's market value--and the money someone earns reflects the market value of his work. There is no fixed, pre-existing glob of income that somehow oozes disproportionately into the pockets of the rich. Wealth is created. The top fifth of the population have ten times more income than the bottom fifth because they have produced ten times more.

In a statist system, people advance through government favors and at the expense of the genuinely deserving. But in a free, capitalist system, income inequality represents something good. It means that exceptional individuals are free to do their productive best, and to reap their rewards. Whenever a Bill Gates arises to make his fortune, the income disparity between top and bottom increases--but so does everyone's standard of living. If so, why shouldn't we welcome an inequality--including a widening inequality--in incomes? And, instead of apologizing for this phenomenon, why aren't our leaders denouncing the egalitarian enviers who want to level us all?​
Click to expand...

I'm presuming that you're simply putting this statement up for discussion, rather than actively supporting it...

Yes, obviously all the middle managers who earn £50K/£60K are incredibly productive, and not just (largely) a complete waste of space in a bureaucratic system....

Trickle-down theory (I think I'm right in saying this is what this is) works only in a very limited way. IMHO, if money is what motivates highly creative people, then some allowance has to be made for this. But outside this very small group, the theory ceases to have any meaning.

The problem with our society (speaking as a british person, anyways) is that so many very important jobs are held in such poor regard,a nd paid so abysmally, that no-one in their right mind would want to do them. If everyone treated people who do the 'shitty' jobs better, then maybe everyone would benefit.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
I'm sure that you don't subscribe to that Vimothy but I simply don't see how in a world with inherited wealth someone can argue that everyone is "worth" exactly how much money they "earn".
It seems clear that another (in fact the main) reason for widening inequality is people who inherit money (whether "exceptional" or not) being likely to earn more than people who are born to poor parents.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
I'm presuming that you're simply putting this statement up for discussion, rather than actively supporting it...
Click to expand...

You know me, always courting controversy - thought it might stimulate a bit of debate, maybe.

Yes, obviously all the middle managers who earn £50K/£60K are incredibly productive, and not just (largely) a complete waste of space in a bureaucratic system....
Click to expand...

Obviously, middle managers on £50k per year are not "incredibly productive", that's why they're only earning £50k a year. In a hypothetical situation, let's say a generic corporation, middle managers are more productive than data entry clerks and hence recieve a higher wage. If this were not the case, any approriately money grabbbing capitalist company would surely pay their middle managers a lot less, or possibly just sack them.

Trickle-down theory (I think I'm right in saying this is what this is) works only in a very limited way. IMHO, if money is what motivates highly creative people, then some allowance has to be made for this. But outside this very small group, the theory ceases to have any meaning.
Click to expand...

"Trickle-down theory" - that's nothing but rhetoric, baboon2004, as a concept in general, and I don't see how it's relevant here. Perhaps you could explain.

The problem with our society (speaking as a british person, anyways) is that so many very important jobs are held in such poor regard,a nd paid so abysmally, that no-one in their right mind would want to do them. If everyone treated people who do the 'shitty' jobs better, then maybe everyone would benefit.
Click to expand...

Eh? Like what?
 
Slothrop

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
IdleRich said:
I'm sure that you don't subscribe to that Vimothy but I simply don't see how in a world with inherited wealth someone can argue that everyone is "worth" exactly how much money they "earn".
It seems clear that another (in fact the main) reason for widening inequality is people who inherit money (whether "exceptional" or not) being likely to earn more than people who are born to poor parents.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is the most obvious issue with the statement made. Before we get onto the possibility of starting out with enough money to be the, er, Idle Rich, in a free market economy the things that increase your economic worth (education being the most obvious one) are going to be entirely dependant on your or your parents' ability to pay for it.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
I'm sure that you don't subscribe to that Vimothy but I simply don't see how in a world with inherited wealth someone can argue that everyone is "worth" exactly how much money they "earn".
Click to expand...

No, but inherited wealth is certainly justified. If I spend my entire working life saving and struggling and pulling myself up out of poverty (as so many people did last century), why shouldn't my children be allowed to enjoy it? Surely it's one of the prime reasons one might have for making that effort in the first place. And if I've earned a vast fortune, rather than a merely moderate one? It's the same principle.

Also, regarding worth, you're confusing the issue, IMO. I might be worth £5 million in assets, or £100k per year in income tax, but that's not connected to my worth as a person. It doesn't relect how my family looks at me, nor should it. It's not about your personal worth in a new age sense.

It seems clear that another (in fact the main) reason for widening inequality is people who inherit money (whether "exceptional" or not) being likely to earn more than people who are born to poor parents.
Click to expand...

Can you actually prove that? The main reason for widening inequality is that some people are earninig vast amounts of cash, amounts which are constantly increasing, whereas other people are not.

Wealth is not guaranteed:

Income mobility goes in the other direction as well. Of the people who were in the top one percent of income earners in 1979, over half, or 52.7 percent, were gone by 1988.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
No, but inherited wealth is certainly justified.
Click to expand...
Well, leaving that debate aside for the moment it contradicts what your friend just said about the top people being richer because they have produced more, they may have just inherited it.

Also, regarding worth, you're confusing the issue, IMO. I might be worth £5 million in assets, or £100k per year in income tax, but that's not connected to my worth as a person. It doesn't relect how my family looks at me, nor should it. It's not about your personal worth in a new age sense
Click to expand...
OK, worth was a bad choice of word. I meant is someone earning ten times as much as someone else (possibly from the interest on what they inherited) ten times as productive as that person and ten times as much of an asset to society?

Can you actually prove that?
Click to expand...
Do you really think it's not true or are you just trying to score points?

The main reason for widening inequality is that some people are earninig vast amounts of cash, amounts which are constantly increasing, whereas other people are not.
Click to expand...
You've correctly identified another problem there. Once I've made money (possibly by being productive, possibly not) I can then increase my pile by owning land or shares or just earning interest. In other words, if you have money it is easier to make more money. this does not necessitate being productive and I can't really see that it's a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top