• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rich-Poor gap widening

yes, and they have always been people, richa nd poor, talent and not so much, good looking and ugy, smart and not so smart who do very questionable things. But we can't leap to conclusions as to why. Many people work hard every single day. In fact, I'd say the overwhelming majority.

We can even find stories of amazing people doing amazing things, extremely amazing. This two has always been the case. But both extremes are the minority and always have been.

So what's the excuse for a group of people rejecting 70% of the job offers that come their way? They're poor, so they need the money, so why not take the job?
 
So what's the excuse for a group of people rejecting 70% of the job offers that come their way? They're poor, so they need the money, so why not take the job?

I have no idea, but I don't assume I kow either. I know very little about the population being studied. Nor do I know their circumstances or what influenced their decisions, or what obsticles they face. We can be vague and general, but that would likely miss something important. All you have now is a number with no insight as to what that number means.
 
I have no idea, but I don't assume I kow either. I know very little about the population being studied. Nor do I know their circumstances or what influenced their decisions, or what obsticles they face. We can be vague and general, but that would likely miss something important. All you have now is a number with no insight as to what that number means.

Give me any alternative explanation, I'd like to hear it.
 
Give me any alternative explanation, I'd like to hear it.

I gave you two, but I point out again, the fact is we don't know. And that would be true even if I gave you none.
 
I gave you two, but I point out again, the fact is we don't know. And that would be true even if I gave you none.

One of those reasons was again related to work ethic (drugs) and the other didn't make sense (they wouldn't get the offers if they were educationally qualified).

I'm just looking for any other reason that could possibly be unrelated to work ethic, or else I'm forced to conclude that it is work ethic.
 
One of those reasons was again related to work ethic (drugs) and the other didn't make sense (they wouldn't get the offers if they were educationally qualified).

I'm just looking for any other reason that could possibly be unrelated to work ethic, or else I'm forced to conclude that it is work ethic.

No, drugs is separate. Drugs can take on a life of it's onw with the adict. And people take a job they really can't handle all the time. But I would need more information to give you more, and you should want more as well.
 
No, drugs is separate. Drugs can take on a life of it's onw with the adict.

But that's not really an economic problem. It's a problem that the drug-user himself created.

And people take a job they really can't handle all the time. But I would need more information to give you more, and you should want more as well.

It seems pretty clear to me. I just want any other possibility because work ethic is the only one I can think of.
 
But that's not really an economic problem. It's a problem that the drug-user himself created.

Certainly self created, and one many a young person has created for his or her self. But it could be a reason all the same.

It seems pretty clear to me. I just want any other possibility because work ethic is the only one I can think of.

Well, the limits of either of our knowledge or imagination doesn't mean another reason isn't there. I used to work with young people who were bright and reasonablyhard working. But they made more money selling drugs than could be made working an honest job. they had sense of honor, not mind, but a strange sense of honor, and they were not lazy. But they often took a job outside of their illegal trade, but never kept them long. One intruded on the other.

Now I have no idea what the people studied did, but that's my point. You don't either.
 
And nothing provided has even asked.

yes, and they have always been people, rich and poor, talent and not so much, good looking and ugy, smart and not so smart who do very questionable things.

This two has always been the case.

Nor do I know their circumstances or what influenced their decisions, or what obsticles they face.

No, drugs is separate.

Drugs can take on a life of it's onw with the adict.

But they often took a job outside of their illegal trade, but never kept them long.

college dept chair, huh?

sure, boo, sure

LOL!
 
Show me census data that follow individuals.

"Table 708. Individuals and families below poverty level 2008: Individuals 30,108,000 Families - 7,252,000."

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0708.pdf

"Census Bureau's poverty thresholds for 2009: One person - $10,956."

What are Poverty Thresholds and Poverty Guidelines?


But $22,000 is a lot better than it sounds when you include all of the benefits that they're getting.

Oh yeah, a family of four on $22,000 in todays economy are just rolling in dough. Are you serious?



Proof using data that follow individuals?

Look at the same Census data I linked to at the top of my post.



Poor by an arbitrary definition! And a greater income disparity is a good thing. Should they lazy see rising income? No. Should the highest possible income grow with time? Absolutely yes! So I'm not worried about it. Most incomes are growing if you look at real data.

Total BS!


Proof that charity could not fill the void?

The proof is that they can't now, and you suggest to throw more of your responsibility onto to them. Why should they take up the slack for you in the first place?
 
Last edited:
I am still waiting for a solution from those hand-wringers who have their nylons in a run over this "fact"
 
I am still waiting for a solution from those hand-wringers who have their nylons in a run over this "fact"

As I've said before, one of the first things we need to do is return the progressive tax system that brought about a rising middle class and kept our National debt manageable for 50 years before it was slashed.
 
Anybody who tells you money is the root of all evil doesn't ****ing have any. Jim Young, Boiler Room
 
As I've said before, one of the first things we need to do is return the progressive tax system that brought about a rising middle class and kept our National debt manageable for 50 years before it was slashed.

back in the days of Jim Crow?
actually no one has come close to showing causation

and you apparently have lots of issues with those who have worked harder and smarter than you have
 
and you apparently have lots of issues with those who have worked harder and smarter than you have

And then you issue a poopy like this one that makes me doubt you ever even got into Ivy league.
 
It's all relative. If Person A has $1 million, then increases his wealth to $2 million, while person B has $10, and stays at $10, if you look at the median between A and B, it will go up as person A's wealth goes up. What I'm saying is that relatively speaking, if a rich person gets richer, and poor person gets poorer regardless of whether the poor person looses money or not.
 
It's all relative. If Person A has $1 million, then increases his wealth to $2 million, while person B has $10, and stays at $10, if you look at the median between A and B, it will go up as person A's wealth goes up. What I'm saying is that relatively speaking, if a rich person gets richer, and poor person gets poorer regardless of whether the poor person looses money or not.

How does that account for what has been happening for the last 3 dedades, as the taxes from the top tax rate bracket have been shifted to the middle tax bracket, forcing more of the middle class under the poverty line?

Why do you see that as a good thing?
 
Anybody who tells you money is the root of all evil doesn't ****ing have any. Jim Young, Boiler Room

You're right. Money is only a tool.


I think humans are the root of all evil. I must not be human.
 
I suppose I just don't understand the mindset of "If someone has a lot of money, they deserve to have it and earned it, all those people without money are just failures/lazy/human trash."
 
Anybody who tells you money is the root of all evil doesn't ****ing have any. Jim Young, Boiler Room

Reading people truncate that aphorism is a pet peeve of mine. The full quote is "Love of money is the root of all evil."

Aside from that, I do appreciate the irony of someone evidently holding a "greed is good" viewpoint trying to vindicate him/herself by dredging up an indirect quote from the holy book of Jesus "take-pains-to-help-the-poor" Christ.
 
Mayor Snorkum knows the real meaning of the expandin gap between the richest and the poorest.

The poor have nothing, can't have less.

The rich have much and know how to earn more.

An expanding wealth gap is the desirable sign of a growing economy.
 
So what's the excuse for a group of people rejecting 70% of the job offers that come their way? They're poor, so they need the money, so why not take the job?

People reject offers of employment for one reason and one reason only.

Their current condition is satisfying their emotional and economic needs.

Amazing how so many people manage to find work just weeks after their unemployment benefits expire, isn't?
 
And then you issue a poopy like this one that makes me doubt you ever even got into Ivy league.

you can speculate all you want

those who "thanked" your post pretty much establish its wrong:mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom