Even Some College Students Are Starting to Get It

[stebo0728]

You might be right, but as you can say, you can quantify the benefit that the poor get from the rich. Lets try to quantify what benefit the rich get from the poor. Any ideas? Not generalized notions either, any concrete ideas?

[AppleBonker]

It's far trickier to do that, especially with programs/policies in place to prevent it from going too far. I'm not sure that I've placed enough thought into the matter to have a solid example off the top of my head, but I will think about it.

[AZhitman]

I can do that (note - I'm far from "rich", but you'll get the idea):

When I was single, I paid to have my house cleaned. And I paid well.
Because I am busy, I pay to have my dress clothes dry-cleaned for work.
Since it'd take me 10x longer to do it, I paid to have my landscaping installed.
Too many cars to keep clean, so I'm considering getting a "family package" at the local car wash.
There's more, but you get the idea.

[stebo0728]

The machine, the frozen form of a living intelligence, is the power that expands the potential of your life by raising the productivity of your time. If you worked as a blacksmith in the mystics' Middle Ages, the whole of your earning capacity would consist of an iron bar produced by your hands in days and days of effort. How many tons of rail do you produce per day if you work for Hank Rearden? Would you dare to claim that the size of your pay check was created solely by your physical labor and that those rails were the product of your muscles? The standard of living of that blacksmith is all that your muscles are worth; the rest is a gift from Hank Rearden.

...

In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the "competition" between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of "exploitation" for which you have damned the strong.

The gist being that the "exploitation" of the poor at the hands of the rich is a misconception, in that the rich, the producers, can function without the laborer, even if its only to make his own way, for his own family, he can do so of his own volition, but its the laborer that needs the industrialist, for without him, he could not rise above his mediocrity.

[heliochrome85]

The machine, the frozen form of a living intelligence, is the power that expands the potential of your life by raising the productivity of your time. If you worked as a blacksmith in the mystics' Middle Ages, the whole of your earning capacity would consist of an iron bar produced by your hands in days and days of effort. How many tons of rail do you produce per day if you work for Hank Rearden? Would you dare to claim that the size of your pay check was created solely by your physical labor and that those rails were the product of your muscles? The standard of living of that blacksmith is all that your muscles are worth; the rest is a gift from Hank Rearden.

...

In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the "competition" between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of "exploitation" for which you have damned the strong.

The gist being that the "exploitation" of the poor at the hands of the rich is a misconception, in that the rich, the producers, can function without the laborer, even if its only to make his own way, for his own family, he can do so of his own volition, but its the laborer that needs the industrialist, for without him, he could not rise above his mediocrity.

tell me, when are you going to be a millionare?

[stebo0728]

tell me, when are you going to be a millionare?

Not nearly as soon as you will stud, especially with my divorce looming ...

[AZhitman]

^ Interesting writing, stebo.

Brings to mind something I've tried to share with my kids as a "life lesson": When we were dirt-poor, just starting out, with 2 kids and one on the way, 3 months on food stamps, working 2 jobs AND slinging newspapers in the middle of the night for extra cash, eating ramen... you get the idea...

...lots of my peers / coworkers lived a different lifestyle. They'd hit up happy hour at the bar, spend money on CDs and movies, b**** about the boss, complain about their lot in life - but the one universal thing about all of them? They all hung out together.

I declined their invitations. Instead, I sought out people who had "made it" or were well on their way. I became friends with a few key people... a well-known psychiatrist, a successful financial analyst, a very wealthy real estate developer, and an inventor. I'd spend as much time with them as I could spare. I'd invite them over, with no shame for our ramshackle residence. I'd ask as many questions as they'd tolerate. Those people really shaped my future.

Criminal Justice / Profiling 101: The top two predictors of behavior are past behavior and the company you keep. Maybe, as Adam Carolla says, we should quit being so afraid to judge people. Rather, judge away, and choose your circle of friends wisely... they can change your life.

EDIT: Holy random. Blood sugar low, BRB.

[heliochrome85]

tell me, when are you going to be a millionare?

Not nearly as soon as you will stud, especially with my divorce looming ...

sorry if it sounded mean spirited. i guess what im trying to understand is why it matters so much to you and other people who are against higher taxes for the rich, when ultimately the very services we need to cut in order to finance such a tax cut, would be the services that you and me need to survive, education, social security, medicare. the issue is that this country allows alot of opportunity to gain wealth. and yes it is because we have more than a few people making below the poverty line. donald trump doesnt stop using his corporate jet because his taxes are up 1% from last year, but a family of 5 living in south central LA, or in west texas, may have to skip eating meat that week because their taxes are higher. my point is that ultimately the top 1% now pay the lowest taxes in several generations and despite it all, we see little trickle down. they were living damn nice lives before when they paid higher taxes, and they haven't changed one bit.

poverty always exists. how can we believe in american exceptionalism when we neglect the weakest members of our society?

if you take away healthcare, endemic diseases that are easily treatable flare up, like Tuberculosis which cause hugh costs in terms of man hours lost to sick time, and in terms of actual public health risk. if you take away social security, the elderly have to find jobs to support their many many illnesses, in a time where they often arent efficient workers. if you take away education, short of going to private school, you arent going to get the education needed to success in a global economy and are destined to make minimum wage. tell me how we can sustain these programs, avoiding the outcomes i outlined, without raising taxes and cutting Defense spending?

[heliochrome85]

^ Interesting writing, stebo.

Brings to mind something I've tried to share with my kids as a "life lesson": When we were dirt-poor, just starting out, with 2 kids and one on the way, 3 months on food stamps, working 2 jobs AND slinging newspapers in the middle of the night for extra cash, eating ramen... you get the idea...

...lots of my peers / coworkers lived a different lifestyle. They'd hit up happy hour at the bar, spend money on CDs and movies, b**** about the boss, complain about their lot in life - but the one universal thing about all of them? They all hung out together.

I declined their invitations. Instead, I sought out people who had "made it" or were well on their way. I became friends with a few key people... a well-known psychiatrist, a successful financial analyst, a very wealthy real estate developer, and an inventor. I'd spend as much time with them as I could spare. I'd invite them over, with no shame for our ramshackle residence. I'd ask as many questions as they'd tolerate. Those people really shaped my future.

Criminal Justice / Profiling 101: The top two predictors of behavior are past behavior and the company you keep. Maybe, as Adam Carolla says, we should quit being so afraid to judge people. Rather, judge away, and choose your circle of friends wisely... they can change your life.

EDIT: Holy random. Blood sugar low, BRB.

i dont disagree. i just think that you arent going to find such fine neighbors when mom is a crackwhore and dad left the moment she missed her period.

[stebo0728]

What so many people dont realize, is that manual labor only has a set tangible value, which is traditionally very low. Not so low that you cant live on it, but it makes for a hard life. When we seek to artifice the value of manual labor with the goal of equalizing man regardless of profession, we end up losing manual labor market share to other sources. Anyone who wishes to better himself, has to develop a trade that places value upon his mind.

[heliochrome85]

^ Interesting writing, stebo.

Brings to mind something I've tried to share with my kids as a "life lesson": When we were dirt-poor, just starting out, with 2 kids and one on the way, 3 months on food stamps, working 2 jobs AND slinging newspapers in the middle of the night for extra cash, eating ramen... you get the idea...

...lots of my peers / coworkers lived a different lifestyle. They'd hit up happy hour at the bar, spend money on CDs and movies, b**** about the boss, complain about their lot in life - but the one universal thing about all of them? They all hung out together.

I declined their invitations. Instead, I sought out people who had "made it" or were well on their way. I became friends with a few key people... a well-known psychiatrist, a successful financial analyst, a very wealthy real estate developer, and an inventor. I'd spend as much time with them as I could spare. I'd invite them over, with no shame for our ramshackle residence. I'd ask as many questions as they'd tolerate. Those people really shaped my future.

Criminal Justice / Profiling 101: The top two predictors of behavior are past behavior and the company you keep. Maybe, as Adam Carolla says, we should quit being so afraid to judge people. Rather, judge away, and choose your circle of friends wisely... they can change your life.

EDIT: Holy random. Blood sugar low, BRB.

also isnt this an example of good parenting? i mean you must be teaching your many chirrens the same thing...

[AZhitman]

i just think that you arent going to find such fine neighbors when mom is a crackwhore and dad left the moment she missed her period.

None were neighbors, but I smell what you're cookin'.

...and contrary to what the profs are spittin' in Academia-land, increased taxation on "the rich" ain't gonna cut it: http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/22/b ... l?hpt=Sbin

[AppleBonker]

Greg, for what it's worth, I don't know that I've seen anyone arguing that raising taxes should be the ONLY measure taken in this case. I think the argument has been presented that tax increases and spending cuts should occur simultaneously.

[heliochrome85]

i just think that you arent going to find such fine neighbors when mom is a crackwhore and dad left the moment she missed her period.

None were neighbors, but I smell what you're cookin'.

...and contrary to what the profs are spittin' in Academia-land, increased taxation on "the rich" ain't gonna cut it: http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/22/b ... l?hpt=Sbin

i know it aint gonna cut it, but coupled with domestic spending cuts, will get us alot closer to where we need to be.

[stebo0728]

No not really. If we tax the rich, even if we taxed them 100% of their income, we wouldnt make the difference. Theres no way to refute the fact that we are just spending too damn much money, and we cant support it, even with an AGGRESSIVE progressive tax system, we wont make it. If we argue that tax increase is unavoidable, and we are coupling it with DRASTIC spending cuts, then I'll go along, but even still it'll have to be 95spending/5taxes

[IBCoupe]

Except for their existing public services, and except for those wanting a national sales tax or a flat tax, sure.

Wait wait, please dont try to make the argument that failing to give is the same as taking away.

The Bush Tax Cuts are calling, Stebo.

[IBCoupe]

Ok, thanks for summing that up, but I still denounce the idea that wealth is originally [divided or given out in shares, dealt out, or allotted]. But actually, its funny you throw number 2 in there, because by his and admission, that exactly Obama's goal in re-[spreading, scattering] wealth.

You can denounce it all you want, but that's not what anybody's saying. I denounce the supposition that the sky is the color of pumpkin pie. I like this game.

And it's not "funny" at all, because that's what people mean when they say "redistribution of wealth." That was my point. I'm glad you think it's "funny" that I clearly know what I'm talking about.

And who in the hell are you to stick your thumb on the scale of economic achievement? Might chum of you to actually to refer to it that way, as it actually sheds a bit more light on the sinister nature that drives "progressivism".

1. The society within which there is an economy.
2. What's sinister?

[stebo0728]

The Bush Tax Cuts are calling, Stebo.

Touche, still not the same in my opinion though.

[heliochrome85]

The Bush Tax Cuts are calling, Stebo.

Touche, still not the same in my opinion though.

apparent 3.5 trillion over 10 years is not enough money these days.

[IBCoupe]

Your arrogance is leaking out again.

That's not a bug; that's a feature.

Grades, in many cases, directly correspond to paychecks. Even in the not-so-direct correlation, they provide increased opportunities and exposure. You yourself have railed on about the plight of the underclass and their lack of opportunities (and the fast-tracking of the "well-heeled").

Kinda, but that's a function of people making use of the tracking system. For example, it might just be that without a grading system, companies would still hand out bigger paychecks to smarter people, because those smarter people do more. But they'd have to spend more effort in finding them. Grades are a way of cutting out the middle steps.

Grades aren't a "reward" or "compensation" in the way that your paycheck is. You don't get extra money just by having good grades. You still have to go to work. "Grades" are a system of tracking achievement. It might just be that you can use compensation to track capabilities, but that's not the fundamental purpose of a paycheck.

So, let's not be calling something a dumbass analogy just because it doesn't correspond with YOUR view of how an argument should be presented.

That's not why I called it a dumbass analogy. I called it a dumbass analogy because it's comparing apples to oranges. Taxing income at different rates is not like redistributing grade-point-averages. Taxes do not negate the purpose of income (to compensate for services rendered), but redistributing grade-point-averages does negate the purpose of grade-point-averages (to keep track of which students are the most talented). I thought I was clear on this.

[IBCoupe]

As opposed to the poor, who have no time or resources to devote to fighting back.

If that were true, daytime television would cease to exist. So would lottery tickets. And 70% of cigarette sales. Oh, and half of p0rn.

"No time". "No resources."

Yes, poor people... this is what the Left thinks of you. You have nothing to offer.

Let me know when politicians make themselves available for sale, prorated, at the 7/11.

[stebo0728]

Let me know when politicians make themselves available for sale, prorated, at the 7/11.

Ding Dongs come in 2 packs even!

[IBCoupe]

The machine, the frozen form of a living intelligence, is the power that expands the potential of your life by raising the productivity of your time. If you worked as a blacksmith in the mystics' Middle Ages, the whole of your earning capacity would consist of an iron bar produced by your hands in days and days of effort. How many tons of rail do you produce per day if you work for Hank Rearden? Would you dare to claim that the size of your pay check was created solely by your physical labor and that those rails were the product of your muscles? The standard of living of that blacksmith is all that your muscles are worth; the rest is a gift from Hank Rearden.

...

In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the "competition" between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of "exploitation" for which you have damned the strong.

The gist being that the "exploitation" of the poor at the hands of the rich is a misconception, in that the rich, the producers, can function without the laborer, even if its only to make his own way, for his own family, he can do so of his own volition, but its the laborer that needs the industrialist, for without him, he could not rise above his mediocrity.

Oh, dear God, step away from the corpse of Ms. Rand.

Your explanation belies your claim. You say that the rich could get right back down on their knees and dig in the dirt if they had to, in order to survive, and that he's not indicates his ability to rise up above the level of a laborer, whereas laborers are too stupid to get up and off of their butts.

You're saying that the rich could survive as poor people, but the poor couldn't become rich without rich people. Didn't it ever occur to you that the dichotomy you're setting up has the rich simply outsourcing their laborer functions? That the only reason the rich can afford to not be poor is because someone else is doing it for them?

[IBCoupe]

In other words, Stebo, let me correct your summary:

The laborer needs the industrialist because without the industrialist, the laborer will never be able to rise above his mediocrity.
The industrialist needs the laborer, for without the laborer doing the dirty work, the industrialist would be forced to do it himself, sapping valuable resources that could be otherwise spent doing industrialisty things.

Remember, kids, it's only "class warfare" when liberals do it.

[AZhitman]

You say that the rich could get right back down on their knees and dig in the dirt if they had to, in order to survive, and that he's not indicates his ability to rise up above the level of a laborer, whereas laborers are too stupid to get up and off of their butts.

That's not what I read.

You're saying that the rich could survive as poor people, but the poor couldn't become rich without rich people.

I didn't see that either.

Didn't it ever occur to you that the dichotomy you're setting up has the rich simply outsourcing their laborer functions? That the only reason the rich can afford to not be poor is because someone else is doing it for them?

And? I'm not trying to be difficult or dense, but what's the point? Is there a substantive argument that it's not the case?

[IBCoupe]

Greg, what do you take this to mean:

[T]he rich, the producers, can function without the laborer, even if its only to make his own way, for his own family, he can do so of his own volition, but its the laborer that needs the industrialist, for without him, he could not rise above his mediocrity.

...if not what I wrote?

[AZhitman]

The laborer needs the industrialist because without the industrialist, the laborer will never be able to rise above his mediocrity.
The industrialist needs the laborer, for without the laborer doing the dirty work, the industrialist would be forced to do it himself, sapping valuable resources that could be otherwise spent doing industrialisty things.

You write great Cliff's Notes. I liked the original better.

Remember, kids, it's only "class warfare" when liberals do it.

Right.

When conservatives do it, it's "racism" (or "wanting poor people to die").

[AZhitman]

Greg, what do you take this to mean:

[T]he rich, the producers, can function without the laborer, even if its only to make his own way, for his own family, he can do so of his own volition, but its the laborer that needs the industrialist, for without him, he could not rise above his mediocrity.

...if not what I wrote?

Not what you wrote. Gimme a bit, got 4 things going at once.

Short version: You can't have a Kurt Warner without a Bill Bidwell. No one said anything about "laziness".

[AZhitman]

Let me know when politicians make themselves available for sale, prorated, at the 7/11.

If you disagree, then disagree. I don't care about the bunny with a pancake on its head.

[IBCoupe]

Let me know when politicians make themselves available for sale, prorated, at the 7/11.

If you disagree, then disagree. I don't care about the bunny with a pancake on its head.

The resources it takes to get political influence and the resources it takes to buy a pack of cigarettes are not comparable.

That was my point.