Jesse, Bad Boy: a discussion

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

No, he was in 9th grade when there was the fire. The tornado hit when second semester of his senior year. He comes from a family of 5 kids, so even though he's my friend, i'll admit that major stupidity was the factor. That and one parent had a part time job.

Wait, somehow stupidity caused the tornado? Jesus jumped up Christ, get NOAA and NCAR on the phone, we've got ourselves a breakthrough.

[millej11]

Where did I say that stupididy caused the tornado? I was talking about the fact that even though they lived in poverty, they still felt the need to have more than enough childeren. Probably unplanned as well.

[flashleg8]

If the government has taken enough money from you so that you are living in poverty, you either:
A: Suck at life
B: Are very unintelligent, resulting in that you suck at life.
C: Can't manage your own funds, the result of being very unintelligent. Which your klan seems to be supporting. Hey everyone, just be poor and waste your money, these guys will bail you out.

Fighting for a the rights of people who don't know enough to invest in private accounts and/or are too lazy to do so is a huge waste of time and life. And we all know that time is money, so quit wasting money.

I pity you and your attempts at inevitable failure.

Or you're born into a poor area, sink estate, in a family with no prospects and completely inadequate government benefits. Its a cycle some people cannot break.

I agree with Guiscard here. I guarantee most people espousing the view you take millej11 come from a middle class or above background. This is just a way of looking at the poor with out having to feel guilty, the dark side of the American dream "anyone can make it rich here - therefore those that don't are lazy". There are complicated social pressures that keep the poor in cycles of poverty, it is highly conceited of you to imply that these people are less intelligent that you - less educated perhaps. Your own example of your friend that won a scholarship and was able to secure a good job illustrates this - would he have been able to get a job without that privilege? Does it make him inherently less intelligent? No.
The rich will always be rich as they have the best resources and connections to ensure their children succeed.
The middle classes raise their children to try hard at education because this method worked for them and often have resources available to them to higher tutors or buy the latest equipment which would not be available to poorer kids. In the UK, middle class parents are more likely to select which school there children go to, and are prepared to drive out of the recruitment catchment zone to take their children to a better performing school. Parents from a lower social class are much less likely to do this - does this imply they don't want the best for their children? Of course not - every parent wants this. There perhaps do not have the same resources to allow them to do a daily "school run" to another area - unlikely to have a second family car, more likely to have both parents working etc.
Another problem at the extreme end of the scale is where people from the most economically poor areas are much less likely to perform well at school and much higher drop out percentages. This is perhaps due to a disillusionment with the whole education process. The parents have found school useless to them and are therefore not inclined (or not able) to help with homework, extra curricular activities etc. Parents barely able to meet their budgets are often not able to pay (and often too ashamed to ask for help) extra money for simple things such as new uniforms or sports kits and school trips/holidays, all these things help to marginalise the children at school. The children in these areas are also more likely to be facing other social/domestic problems (such as domestic abuse, addictions, absent parents etc) which also impacts on their schoolwork. Even simpler things like poor diet and restricted money for lunch etc can impact on their effectiveness at school.
This kind of inherited disillusionment cannot be broken unless schools in deprived areas are given extra support to allow those kids an equal chance against the more affluent suburban schools.
Your "welcome to the jungle" approach will do nothing to alter these problems and is helping to keep these people impoverished.

[Guiscard]

Everything I wanted to say but was too lazy and full of pancakes to type...

[millej11]

I stopped reading after "in the UK"

[Guiscard]

No response to the bit before it then? retracting your previous comments?

[flashleg8]

I stopped reading after "in the UK"

I don't know enough about your school system over there to state facts, but I would presume you have exactly the same problems - for the same reasons.
America - the land of the free, but only if you've got money to buy stuff with.

[reverend_kyle]

Before I give a response, let me ask you. Are you a liberal or a conservative?

Liberal and Conservative, labels made up by politicians in an attempt to polarize the people into supporting bollocks causes.

[Guiscard]

Not 'made up by', but certainly 'used to'

[everywhere116]

Have you heard of someone "climbing the corporate ladder"? Its simple, you start out at the lowest rung of your corporation, apply yourself, work hard, dont be lazy, get a promotion, apply yourself, work hard, dont be lazy, get a promotion...do that well, you will retire comfortably I guarantee it. One of my cousin's friends started out as a bagboy and ended up in corporate headquarters as an executive.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

Have you heard of someone "climbing the corporate ladder"? Its simple, you start out at the lowest rung of your corporation, apply yourself, work hard, dont be lazy, get a promotion, apply yourself, work hard, dont be lazy, get a promotion...do that well, you will retire comfortably I guarantee it. One of my cousin's friends started out as a bagboy and ended up in corporate headquarters as an executive.

Corporations are part of the problem. They take money from the government so they can keep wages low (thus attributing to poor wages of those with little skills), force smaller businesses into submission (with the governments help, no less), and enjoy a plethora of legal statuses not conferred upon any other business. To add to that, where do you think the government gets the money from to pay the corporations? The taxpayers. So not only are they corporations keeping the wages low because of corporate welfare, but they are assisted by the government which in turns takes money from those who fit a lower income bracket. In essence, they get fucked over. twice

[flashleg8]

Have you heard of someone "climbing the corporate ladder"? Its simple, you start out at the lowest rung of your corporation, apply yourself, work hard, dont be lazy, get a promotion, apply yourself, work hard, dont be lazy, get a promotion...do that well, you will retire comfortably I guarantee it. One of my cousin's friends started out as a bagboy and ended up in corporate headquarters as an executive.

I sorry but this is just not common practice. There are barriers in place that effectively stop lower class people from ascending this "corporate ladder", the highest positions often require a mandatory degree level education which would be impossible to attain for someone that has left school at 16 to work. Even if this person manages to get on the job training and perhaps goes through night school and part time education, but the time they have achieved the minimum standard they would be considered "too old" for a graduate level position. Companies are often reluctant to promote people "from the ranks" into positions of authority above former colleges for fear that they will not implement management level decisions on their former friends. Most corporate jobs work on the system of "pay grades", a hard working employee can progress through their pay grade year on year, but it is when the top end of the pay bracket is reached there is no where to go except apply for a different position in the company. There is no guarantee that this position needs the same skill set that worker was on. I’m sure your friend didn't use the same skills in the mail room as in the executive board room - where did he get them watching "The Secret of My Succe$s"
http://imdb.com/title/tt0093936/

[millej11]

No response to the bit before it then? retracting your previous comments?

If your word is not from America, then your word about America means nothing to me. Thanks

I sorry but this is just not common practice. There are barriers in place that effectively stop lower class people from ascending this "corporate ladder", the highest positions often require a mandatory degree level education which would be impossible to attain for someone that has left school at 16 to work. Even if this person manages to get on the job training and perhaps goes through night school and part time education, but the time they have achieved the minimum standard they would be considered "too old" for a graduate level position. Companies are often reluctant to promote people "from the ranks" into positions of authority above former colleges for fear that they will not implement management level decisions on their former friends. Most corporate jobs work on the system of "pay grades", a hard working employee can progress through their pay grade year on year, but it is when the top end of the pay bracket is reached there is no where to go except apply for a different position in the company. There is no guarantee that this position needs the same skill set that worker was on. I’m sure your friend didn't use the same skills in the mail room as in the executive board room - where did he get them watching "The Secret of My Succe$s"
http://imdb.com/title/tt0093936/

To paraphrase: Don't try.

You blind fools rely on the government for help, blame the government and large business for your sorrows, and worship them for your success.

[everywhere116]

Have you heard of someone "climbing the corporate ladder"? Its simple, you start out at the lowest rung of your corporation, apply yourself, work hard, dont be lazy, get a promotion, apply yourself, work hard, dont be lazy, get a promotion...do that well, you will retire comfortably I guarantee it. One of my cousin's friends started out as a bagboy and ended up in corporate headquarters as an executive.

Corporations are part of the problem. They take money from the government so they can keep wages low (thus attributing to poor wages of those with little skills), force smaller businesses into submission (with the governments help, no less), and enjoy a plethora of legal statuses not conferred upon any other business. To add to that, where do you think the government gets the money from to pay the corporations? The taxpayers. So not only are they corporations keeping the wages low because of corporate welfare, but they are assisted by the government which in turns takes money from those who fit a lower income bracket. In essence, they get fucked over. twice

Do you have a source for this. I've never heard of it.

I sorry but this is just not common practice. There are barriers in place that effectively stop lower class people from ascending this "corporate ladder", the highest positions often require a mandatory degree level education which would be impossible to attain for someone that has left school at 16 to work. Even if this person manages to get on the job training and perhaps goes through night school and part time education, but the time they have achieved the minimum standard they would be considered "too old" for a graduate level position. Companies are often reluctant to promote people "from the ranks" into positions of authority above former colleges for fear that they will not implement management level decisions on their former friends. Most corporate jobs work on the system of "pay grades", a hard working employee can progress through their pay grade year on year, but it is when the top end of the pay bracket is reached there is no where to go except apply for a different position in the company. There is no guarantee that this position needs the same skill set that worker was on. I’m sure your friend didn't use the same skills in the mail room as in the executive board room - where did he get them watching "The Secret of My Succe$s"

That is why I dont want you to drop out of 16, I'm saying to finish high school, go to college, annd then go into the workforce.

[benmor78]

I stopped reading after "in the UK"

I don't know enough about your school system over there to state facts, but I would presume you have exactly the same problems - for the same reasons.
America - the land of the free, but only if you've got money to buy stuff with.

I wouldn't agree with that. I'm in the lower end of what's termed middle class here (though probably wealthier than most my age), and I own my house (on a lake), own a boat (no lien), and a truck (no lien). I have no consumer debt but purchase what I want around the time I want it. I have enough money to pursue other interests (right now, it's falconry), but I'm certainly not wealthy by American standards.

The schools I went to were public schools for gifted children, which, in Texas, means schools that are in the worst ghettos you've ever fucking seen. My parents could have sent me to private school, but I went to schools that anyone (with merit) could attend.

[Guiscard]

I'm in the lower end of what's termed middle class here (though probably wealthier than most my age), and I own my house (on a lake), own a boat (no lien), and a truck (no lien). I have no consumer debt but purchase what I want around the time I want it. I have enough money to pursue other interests (right now, it's falconry), but I'm certainly not wealthy by American standards.

Thats the lower end of middle class?

The gulf really is wide isn't it!

[benmor78]

Have you heard of someone "climbing the corporate ladder"? Its simple, you start out at the lowest rung of your corporation, apply yourself, work hard, dont be lazy, get a promotion, apply yourself, work hard, dont be lazy, get a promotion...do that well, you will retire comfortably I guarantee it. One of my cousin's friends started out as a bagboy and ended up in corporate headquarters as an executive.

Corporations are part of the problem. They take money from the government so they can keep wages low (thus attributing to poor wages of those with little skills), force smaller businesses into submission (with the governments help, no less), and enjoy a plethora of legal statuses not conferred upon any other business. To add to that, where do you think the government gets the money from to pay the corporations? The taxpayers. So not only are they corporations keeping the wages low because of corporate welfare, but they are assisted by the government which in turns takes money from those who fit a lower income bracket. In essence, they get fucked over. twice

I'm afraid I'm going to need an explanation as to how it is that corporate welfare forces wages down. I would think that an "Anarcho-capitalist" would be in favor of wages being whatever the market would bear.

[benmor78]

I'm in the lower end of what's termed middle class here (though probably wealthier than most my age), and I own my house (on a lake), own a boat (no lien), and a truck (no lien). I have no consumer debt but purchase what I want around the time I want it. I have enough money to pursue other interests (right now, it's falconry), but I'm certainly not wealthy by American standards.

Thats the lower end of middle class?

The gulf really is wide isn't it!

You don't live here, do you? I often find, when discussing the U.S. with Euros, that y'all often have a distorted view about things here (the health care thing, for instance... Euros often believe no insurance means no health care).

But, in the end, people who make the same amount of money that I make complain about being poor, when, as my life demonstrates, it's a cakewalk to have the things you want on these types of wages.

[Guiscard]

What I'm saying is that if you're as well of as you sound then thats not really lower middle class. I've spent a fair amount of time in America, some of it in very poor areas (Harlem and Brooklyn, bits of LA...) and I've seen the poverty. Its very similar to sink estates in the UK.

To me it seems like your view of what lower middle class is is screwed if being financially well off and being able to afford anything you want with no debt is lower middle class. Everyone complains about being poor. In a quue for a cashpoint the other day a girl was moaning because she was poor becuase her daddy hadn't paid her £200 a week allowance.

[benmor78]

What I'm saying is that if you're as well of as you sound then thats not really lower middle class. I've spent a fair amount of time in America, some of it in very poor areas (Harlem and Brooklyn, bits of LA...) and I've seen the poverty. Its very similar to sink estates in the UK.

To me it seems like your view of what lower middle class is is screwed if being financially well off and being able to afford anything you want with no debt is lower middle class. Everyone complains about being poor. In a quue for a cashpoint the other day a girl was moaning because she was poor becuase her daddy hadn't paid her £200 a week allowance.

Harlem and Brooklyn and bits of LA is not really "America." By financial standards, I am lower middle class. Those people that you are calling "poor" probably make about what I make, but they're "poor" because they make poor financial decisions. Just because I make smarter financial decisions but make the same amount of money they make does not make me "wealthy" by American standards.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

Have you heard of someone "climbing the corporate ladder"? Its simple, you start out at the lowest rung of your corporation, apply yourself, work hard, dont be lazy, get a promotion, apply yourself, work hard, dont be lazy, get a promotion...do that well, you will retire comfortably I guarantee it. One of my cousin's friends started out as a bagboy and ended up in corporate headquarters as an executive.

Corporations are part of the problem. They take money from the government so they can keep wages low (thus attributing to poor wages of those with little skills), force smaller businesses into submission (with the governments help, no less), and enjoy a plethora of legal statuses not conferred upon any other business. To add to that, where do you think the government gets the money from to pay the corporations? The taxpayers. So not only are they corporations keeping the wages low because of corporate welfare, but they are assisted by the government which in turns takes money from those who fit a lower income bracket. In essence, they get fucked over, twice

Do you have a source for this. I've never heard of it.

A source is not required for this. Corporations require a government to exist, and that existence is fed upon by money being given to the corporations as investment so that the government gets more upon return.

That in turn leaves the corporation with more money, thus not leaving them with little reason to raise the wages.

Let me break it down.

X = Wages
W = Employee
% =Company Capital
$ = Surplus
x =Government
(=) = Labor/Capital exchange
(?) = Taxation

In a non-corporatist economy it should look like this:

%-X(=)=W

W=(?)x or W=/=(?)x

x=/=%

A corporatist economy looks like this:

x(=)%$

%-X*(=)=W

W=(?)x

x(=)%$

With the first proof, we see that the government does not pass on the funds to the Corporation. Without the extra surplus capital, the Corporation is forced to either raise the wages, or suffer a laborless labor pool, which would negate any capital they have. Thus, they are required to pay a decent wage for the labor required. (I included a non-taxed equation as well, which would add even more capital into the pockets of the workers)

In the second proof, we see that the Corporation still pays out, but significantly lower wages (noted by the *). This is due to the fact that the government is supporting the Corporation, thus leaving the Corporation with little reason to actually raise the wages of their employees. This leaves the employee with less capital. Next, if you add in the often ridiculously high taxation rates (which goes back to the corporation), the employee is left even less capital, keeping them in a near perpetual state of poverty, or at least less capital then they have/should earn.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

Have you heard of someone "climbing the corporate ladder"? Its simple, you start out at the lowest rung of your corporation, apply yourself, work hard, dont be lazy, get a promotion, apply yourself, work hard, dont be lazy, get a promotion...do that well, you will retire comfortably I guarantee it. One of my cousin's friends started out as a bagboy and ended up in corporate headquarters as an executive.

Corporations are part of the problem. They take money from the government so they can keep wages low (thus attributing to poor wages of those with little skills), force smaller businesses into submission (with the governments help, no less), and enjoy a plethora of legal statuses not conferred upon any other business. To add to that, where do you think the government gets the money from to pay the corporations? The taxpayers. So not only are they corporations keeping the wages low because of corporate welfare, but they are assisted by the government which in turns takes money from those who fit a lower income bracket. In essence, they get fucked over. twice

I'm afraid I'm going to need an explanation as to how it is that corporate welfare forces wages down. I would think that an "Anarcho-capitalist" would be in favor of wages being whatever the market would bear.

The market is tainted when you have the government trying to manipulate it. It's only a theory, but I presented the evidence for my supposition above you.

Mind you, I am not an economist, but I am pretty sure that what I know is well enough to get me by.

[benmor78]

Yeah, I don't buy that, at all. I'll come back later tonight and post some analysis as to why that's ridiculous.

Even accepting your premise, though, the worker can remedy the shortfall by purchasing equity ownership in the employer, thus sharing in the profits.

[everywhere116]

You are argueing that the government should get out of buisiness affairs, which is what conservatives, like me, think is best. Why are we argueing?

[Guiscard]

Harlem and Brooklyn and bits of LA is not really "America." By financial standards, I am lower middle class. Those people that you are calling "poor" probably make about what I make, but they're "poor" because they make poor financial decisions. Just because I make smarter financial decisions but make the same amount of money they make does not make me "wealthy" by American standards.

If you think people who live in the ghettos of LA or New York are there because of poor financial choice then you're an idiot and I really can't be bothered to argue it with you. I've not travelled spectacularly widely in the US, but I do believe I've seen both sides of the coin in regards to wealth. Helping out teaching kids to DJ in the projects in LA to wandering around Beverly Hills.

You seriously think its just financial choice which determines how a person does in life? Some of the guys I met had now chance of getting out. The school system taught them nothing the workplace would value, couldn't get to college, couldn't get job skills... the places where their fathers had worked were laying off labour so there was no real chance of unskilled work. its a cycle and for many its impossible to break without charity or welfare of some kind. Take a look at your country.