Income inequality

[Prebe]

You are pointing to the aberrations, rather than the norm. Most people aren't born into wealth. I assume none of us here were. I also assume most of us here are supporting ourselves. How did that happen? How did it come about that you were able to support yourself and your family? Your choices were the single largest factor in that outcome.

Kindly reread my post. I added answers to that as you were typing.

You are correct. I don't think I have a responsibility to the welfare of my fellow man. How can I be responsible for something I didn't cause or do?

You are certainly not responsible by default, but I (as you know) support a society where each individual assumes a certain amount of responsibility for the welfare of other members of the community. And we are having this conversation because I'm trying to make you see the light of limited socialism

[Zarathustra]

Prebe, there are plenty of unintelligent people supporting themselves. And even with a good school, intelligence, etc., you wouldn't have made made a single Euro without trying, without acting, without making choices and following up on those choices. You are trying really hard to ignore that factor. But nothing would have happened in your life without it. Getting out of bed each morning is a choice.

Some people face harder circumstances and starting points than you. And many of those people have made themselves successful. Again, if Mexicans can sneak into our country and carve out a living without speaking our language or having the benefit of going to our schools, then this is evidence of choice at work. There is no other explanation for the success of people who start out with such dire initial conditions, and yet still end up better off than people who had such a head start.

You are certainly not responsible by default, but I (as you know) support a society where each individual assumes a certain amount of responsibility for the welfare of other members of the community. And we are having this conversation because I'm trying to make you see the light of limited socialism Wink

Ok, you're trying to convince me. Fine. I thought you were saying we have some inherent responsibility for the welfare of people around the globe.

I agree with you that society will be better off if people helped each other more . . . up to a point. The more members are responsible for each other, the less they are responsible for themselves. And in a society of plenty, this just breeds laziness. If I have to try less to support myself, then what's my motivation for trying harder? There should be some sort of safety net, but there shouldn't be institutionalized responsibility for each other. That should be viewed as a last resort, for emergencies, not the norm. If you build a society around the concept that everyone is responsible for everyone else, then personal responsibility is diminished. If personal responsibility is diminished, then people work less and try less. That's a prescription for stagnation.

[SoulBiter]

I said the best way to help people is to help them help themselves. How does that involve my wallet or my pocket? I'd like to help them in a way that they are not dependent upon my wallet. Or my sincerity. If they are producing their own living, then it relieves me of the necessity of supporting them. That's the whole point.
.

This is the right answer. Society, over the years have tried over and over again to fix things by throwing money and resources at it. And only in those cases where they have found the underlying problem with someone earning their own way in society has it really worked. Generally, giving someone free cash and groceries doesnt help them. It only locks them into a dangerous dependancy that can enslave them and their family for generations.

Here is a great example of the US wanting to help but only making matters worse: Food aid.

Just say no how Eritrea refused food aid

In May 2006, at the height of the drought in the Horn and East of Africa, Eritrea declared it wanted no more foreign food aid. The government had already halted the distribution of free food to all but a few thousand people and removed the operating licences of three international aid agencies involved in food handouts. It had locked the warehouses containing 100,000 tonnes of United Nations World Food Programme stocks. No longer, said the government in a lengthy statement posted on its official website, would the people of Eritrea be able to see free food 'as a permanent factor in their life and even as a "right or natural entitlement".'
It was a move that shocked observers. At the end of last year, the UN had predicted that the drought would mean two-thirds of Eritrea's 3.6 million people would need food aid during 2006; 1.3 million people were receiving supplementary food aid in late 2005. But the government of Isaias Afewerki, the charismatic former guerrilla leader who led Eritrea's independence battle with Ethiopia, was adamant. If countries wanted to give aid, then cash would be acceptable. This would be used to pay the poor for work, which would enable them to buy food.

Much of Eritrea has been fed by outsiders for all of the 13 years of the country's existence. Years of free food aid, according to the government, had begun 'to foster a culture of dangerous dependency' in the country. It had 'nurtured lethargy, debilitating idleness and unemployment' and eroded the 'industriousness and hard work ethics of communities'.

Last year, Eritrean President Isaias Afewerki told IRIN his government was implementing programmes of food security, soil and water conservation, introducing new technologies, educating people and using available resources to enhance agricultural production.

He criticised dependency on "outside support", saying it may have its positive aspects but the negative consequences always outweighed the positive.

[Harbinger]

Give a man a fish....

[wayfriend]

"I did it ... you did it ... someone else did it ... this other guy did it... therefore, everyone can do it."

That's not a valid argument. Just thought I'd point that out.

this just breeds laziness.

The number one argument in the arsonal of those who would denounce helping people. Used time and time again.

It's not very true. Most people who receive assistence don't become dependent on assistence, whether its food or shelter or work or whatever.

"This guy got lazy ... this other guy got lazy ... therefore, everyone would get lazy."

Not very valid either.

What's a fairer argument is to ask if the benefit of helping people in need outweighs any possible reduction in ambition.

You can't throw thousands of people under a bus because you're afraid of one guy who might look for a handout.

But that's what we inevitably do.

[SoulBiter]

Its a fine line you have to walk. There should be enough welfare that people who are able and want to work dont starve and can be gotten into the workforce, but not enough that there is no incentive to go out and get a job.

The 70's were a great example of too much welfare. At that time welfare was so good that:

Multiple generations lived on it.

People would not take actual jobs because the money and benefits welfare paid was better than the minimum wage.

People would sometimes not marry because if they did, they lost benefits.

[Zarathustra]

"I did it ... you did it ... someone else did it ... this other guy did it... therefore, everyone can do it."

That's not a valid argument.

Correct. However, that's not our argument. Everyone who can work will improve their lot in life by working--more so than if they did nothing at all. The more someone does for himself, the better off he will be. How's that? Is that valid?

this just breeds laziness.

The number one argument in the arsonal of those who would denounce helping people. Used time and time again.

No one is denouncing helping people. We are saying that the way you guys want to help people actually hurts them.

It's not very true. Most people who receive assistence don't become dependent on assistence, whether its food or shelter or work or whatever.

Then why did we pass welfare reform in the 90s? Why did we put limits on how long you can receive it? Are you against putting limits on assistance? Or requirements that people must seek employment?

I'd like to see some proof that people don't become dependent.

What's a fairer argument is to ask if the benefit of helping people in need outweighs any possible reduction in ambition.

Well, if you read Soulbiter's post, it seems that the very people receiving assistance seem to have answered that question or you:

He criticised dependency on "outside support", saying it may have its positive aspects but the negative consequences always outweighed the positive.

You can't throw thousands of people under a bus because you're afraid of one guy who might look for a handout.

No one is saying we should do that. But if you really think that only 1 person out of "thousands" will become lazy if you support them, then you haven't know enough of these people--or haven't raised children. Laziness is like psychological inertia. It's not a criticism to say that people will often take the path of least resistance. We all do it. As Harbinger pointed out--how many of us are overweight? (I am.) How many of us drive when we could walk? How many of us go out to eat instead of make our own meals? We all love convenience. There are entire industries devoted to making people's lives easier. It's not a criticism to note how people often try to put in the least amount of effort. It's just recognizing a feature of human nature.

[Avatar]

Good posts guys.

I'm somewhere in between...I don't think that we as individuals bear the responsibility for others. I do think that society (read government?) bears some responsibility for making it possible for people to help themselves.

So I'm in favour of a limited kind of support system which nonetheless still encourages people to improve their own lot. And I don't have much problem with government using my tax money to achieve that...as I've said before, government is going to take my money anyway. And I'd rather they used it for that than paying their cronies to do nothing, or similar misuses of tax revenue.

--A

[Prebe]

Prebe, there are plenty of unintelligent people supporting themselves. And even with a good school, intelligence, etc., you wouldn't have made made a single Euro without trying, without acting, without making choices and following up on those choices. You are trying really hard to ignore that factor.

Like hell I am! I know you have a choice. What I'm trying to make you admit is, that this choice is not the same for you and me. This you have sort of admitted. But even if it was the same choice we faced, we would not have the same physical/mental stamina/ability to make the choice.

The bolded line is what you are trying really hard to ignore.

Due to all my advantages in life, my choice to succede was so much easier than that of an orphan in the gutter, or to use a more well represented example that you demanded, a child of a uneducated single parent living in a shitty neighbourhood. And hence equating our choices by saying "We both have a choice" is simply not valid in this discussion. How hard can that be to understand?

Laziness is like psychological inertia. It's not a criticism to say that people will often take the path of least resistance. We all do it.

So, that's why most of Scandinavias population is on welfare

[wayfriend]

Laziness is like psychological inertia.

I find it remarkable that this comment is passable, but one that says not everyone can start a successful business is "a certain disdain toward ... people" and "a lack of faith".

I also find it remarkable that people who believe this will regale us with stories of their own pluck and ingenuity when things were tough. As if somehow they are immune to the laziness like psychological inertia that affects everyone else. A miracle, I guess. Or proof that some people are naturally superior than others, maybe.

Didn't you once also claim that if everyone pays the same cost for health care, it would discourage people from keeping healthy? That's remarkable. As if lower health care costs are the only thing that make us want to be healthy!

People want to be healthy. People want to be self-reliant. Laizness is not systemic. Human civilization is a testament to it. The path of least resistance is eating berries and living under trees.

This is purely a case of generalizing from a few well selected cases and calling it universal. Which means the "discouraging laziness" argument is not the prime motive for advocating a Randian survival-of-the-pluckiest society. It's just the selling argument.

[Prebe]

People want to be healthy. People want to be self-reliant. Laizness is not systemic. Human civilization is a testament to it. The path of least resistance is eating berries and living under trees.

My point exactly.

[Avatar]

Personally, I'm pretty damn lazy. It's just that my landlord demands rent, and so do shop-keepers.

--A

[SoulBiter]

People want to be healthy. People want to be self-reliant. Laizness is not systemic. Human civilization is a testament to it. The path of least resistance is eating berries and living under trees.

My point exactly.

I agree... People 'want' to be healthy. People 'want' to be self reliant.

But thats 'want'. People that want those things dont necessarily 'want' them enough to do whats necessary to accomplish those goals.

Example: I know plenty of people that have diabetes (sp?). Most have been told that if they will watch their diet, exercise and lose some weight, the symptoms of their diabetes will practically disappear. Very few of them are doing anything to exercise, lose weight and watch their diet. These are things totally in their control. They WANT to be healthy but they arent willing to do whats necessary to be healthy.

[wayfriend]

Example: I know plenty of people ....

And I know plenty of people who work really hard to be healthy, a lot harder than I do, because they have medical problems.

So... does your sample represents all of humanity, while mine doesn't? or a greater share of it? On what basis?

(Isn't this resorting to, yet again, cherrypicking an example and claiming it represents all of humanity?)

[SoulBiter]

Example: I know plenty of people ....

And I know plenty of people who work really hard to be healthy, a lot harder than I do, because they have medical problems.

So... does your sample represents all of humanity, while mine doesn't? or a greater share of it? On what basis?

(Isn't this resorting to, yet again, cherrypicking an example and claiming it represents all of humanity?)

Doesnt your example do the same thing on the other side of the coin?

You said "People want to be healthy".... I agree. But you havent convinced me that there are more people that are willing to do whats necessary to be healthy than not. Given the obesity rates that are being given out by the media every day.. I would say that Im not cherry picking.

Today, about 63% of Americans are overweight (men and women are about equally represented) with a BMI of 25 or more.

But if all people 'want' to be healthy then why are all these people overweight?

Answer.. because they dont want it enough to do whats necessary to not be overweight.

How about education.. Education is one of the things that can help you to be employable. Yet the high school drop out rate is 1 in 3 dropping out. IN some cities its almost 50%. If all people want to be employable then why is the dropout rate so high?

[Zarathustra]

Laziness is like psychological inertia.

I find it remarkable that this comment is passable, but one that says not everyone can start a successful business is "a certain disdain toward ... people" and "a lack of faith".

The difference is that you are saying some people can't succeed, while I'm saying some people won't succeed, due to their choices.

if somehow they are immune to the laziness like psychological inertia that affects everyone else. A miracle, I guess. Or proof that some people are naturally superior than others, maybe.

No, just proof that some people make good choices, while other's don't. It's not an immunity to laziness. It's the willingness to not be ruled by it.

Didn't you once also claim that if everyone pays the same cost for health care, it would discourage people from keeping healthy?

Same cost? I don't remember saying that.

Laizness is not systemic. Human civilization is a testament to it. The path of least resistance is eating berries and living under trees.

Human civilization is testament to people rising above their circumstances (including their "psychological inertia"). It's proof that it doesn't have to keep *anyone* down, since we all started out eating berries under the trees. We all had the same starting point. And from that starting point, we built a global civilization.

BTW, the reason we built this civilization was to make our lives easier and more enjoyable. Picking berries under the trees is *not* easier than popping a meal in the microwave. Hunting down a mammoth with a spear is *not* easier than sitting in an office for 8 hours a day.

This is purely a case of generalizing from a few well selected cases and calling it universal. Which means the "discouraging laziness" argument is not the prime motive for advocating a Randian survival-of-the-pluckiest society. It's just the selling argument.

I never said my motive was to discourage laziness. But you seem to have something in mind--so what is my motivation? Why don't you go ahead and violate Biden's advice about assigning motives to people, and tell me what I think.

I've told you what my motivation is: I want people around the world (an in our country) to experience the prosperity which is possible through free market capitalism.

I know you have a choice. What I'm trying to make you admit is, that this choice is not the same for you and me. This you have sort of admitted. But even if it was the same choice we faced, we would not have the same physical/mental stamina/ability to make the choice.

I freely admit that our choices aren't the same. Some choices are harder. Some people have it harder, start out with different initial conditions, etc. I've met this criticism directly with my Mexican immigrant example. I'm not avoiding it at all. It's just that this point doesn't change my argument. Just because people have different initial conditions doesn't change the fact that they are their own prime mover, and their own greatest resource. It doesn't change the fact that one's own choices are the single biggest factor in determining one's future.

Just because it's easier for some people doesn't mean that those who have to struggle harder can't succeed. They just have to try harder, and make bigger sacrifices.

[wayfriend]

The difference is that you are saying some people can't succeed, while I'm saying some people won't succeed, due to their choices.

I never said can't. I said "I disagree with the assertion that anyone (rich or poor) can start their own business and assuredly succeed." Success is not guaranteed. Some people won't. The only thing I said someone can't do is start a sandwhich business from their house when they have no house.

Today, about 63% of Americans are overweight (men and women are about equally represented) with a BMI of 25 or more.

You're still cherry-picking the worst examples you can find.

Almost everyone gets their broken limbs fixed. Almost everyone sees a doctor when they slice themselves open. Almost everyone tries to get rid of their cold, or their flu. Just about everyone gets that funny spot looked at, etc.

Obesity is a case where our culture encourages and reinforces nonhealthy behavior. Social pressures compete with self-preservation, and wins out in too many cases. I'm not hoping to start an obesity rat-hole, I'm just pointing out your picking from one or two things among hundreds where your opinion is reinforced.

[SoulBiter]

I'm just pointing out your picking from one or two things among hundreds where your opinion is reinforced.

Im supposed to pick from things that dont support my opinion? Now that would be silly if Im trying to make the opposite point.

What hundreds where my opinion is not re-inforced?

Also Im not picking the worst examples. Im picking the 'obvious' ones. Its not my fault that you dont seem to see it.

[Avatar]

Just because it's easier for some people doesn't mean that those who have to struggle harder can't succeed. They just have to try harder, and make bigger sacrifices.

But just because people try harder and make bigger sacrifices doesn't mean they will succeed either.

--A

[Prebe]

Just because it's easier for some people doesn't mean that those who have to struggle harder can't succeed. They just have to try harder, and make bigger sacrifices.

I'm cool with that. Does that mean you wouldn't judge two people - A and B - the same, if neither accomplished X, if the choice they had to make to do so was significantly different?

(Does that sentence even make sense? )

And do you acknowledge that is not absolutely possible for anyone to accomplish any task? That if I tell myself "I want to be a billionaire" chances are that I will never succeed in spite the most vigarous attempts?
Edit: You snuck in there Av.

And before you say "That's extreme", you can replace it with anything really, and replace the starting conditions accordingly.