Zhong Lu

Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Poorer

Recommended Posts

(edited)

22 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Everyone has the right to a minimum quality of life (food, clean water, housing, freedom of speech and travel, freedom of excessive servitude/slavery)

Ok I agree, but the thread is about monetary inequality and that in the USA the rich get richer and poor get poorer. It wasn't about the rights of every citizen on Earth as far as I'm aware.

Also, some societies do not have most of your first sentence. Is the inequality there an issue for people? Or just ones they can apply to USA?

They are 'inequal' to our standards in nearly every aspect of their life. But what are we talking about? That?

Nope, course not. Just the faults of the USA.

 

Edited by DayTrader
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Everyone has the right to a minimum quality of life (food, clean water, housing, freedom of speech and travel, freedom of excessive servitude/slavery).  No person shall live in excess until the least among us have the minimum.

Respect for others, valuation of life. 

Helping others doesn't even need to be altruistic, seeing poverty and/or being a victim of crime is unpleasant.  Rich people clean up homelessness quick if it is literally in their backyard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_contagion

 

Help me out. Give me an example of where the rich cleaned it up with their own money, unless it was taxation. Generally the working person is the one that ends up paying a big share of the taxes. The problem I see is that the poor often live better than the lower middle class. Not working has many financial advantages. The tent people with the shopping carts are mainly mentally ill and or drug addicts. The not so poor may live in their car, van, or old motor home. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2019 at 10:15 PM, ronwagn said:

Total destruction of our economy. Venezuela did it very quickly, but there are always a few despots that manage to remain wealthy and secure. Enough wealthy people survive to band together and reward enough henchmen to protect them while they rebuild the power structure. Just look around the world and you can find all the examples. Most of them call themselves socialists or progressives, or communists and claim they are out to help the people with free stuff. Our biggest advantage is that most of our people believe in our constitutional rights, especially the Second Amendment which protects all the other rights. 

Your biggest advantage is USD printing Xerox.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

Help me out. Give me an example of where the rich cleaned it up with their own money, unless it was taxation. Generally the working person is the one that ends up paying a big share of the taxes. The problem I see is that the poor often live better than the lower middle class. Not working has many financial advantages. The tent people with the shopping carts are mainly mentally ill and or drug addicts. The not so poor may live in their car, van, or old motor home. 

Sorry, by "cleaned up" I mostly meant they got the problem moved elsewhere - probably via connections at no direct cost.

"Remember that campaign I donation I made last year?"

 "Yes"

"Well do me a favor and get someone to look into these tent people near my house." ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Yes, there are many people that exist on less than a buck a day, have no access to clean water, etc. - however, that doesn't mean the states have no poor.  "I'm on fire, but that guy is more on fire so I'm fine."

If you only look at developed nations the US has a significant homelessness problem.

Walking through Tenderloin neighborhood in San Francisco makes me sad for mankind, when you compare it to the nearby Union square where excessive wealth is flaunted.  Filthy poor and filthy rich less than 1 mile apart; a real eye-opening walk.

 

The poor pick some of the nicest neighborhoods for services.They probably get better treatment than they would in less affluent areas. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

5 minutes ago, Dmitry Bedin said:

Your biggest advantage is USD printing Xerox.

That doesn't work for long. Still we have it a lot better than the Russians. It has been that way for hundreds of years. Do you think that Putin and his cronies will use their gold to change that?

Edited by ronwagn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2019 at 1:42 AM, Zhong Lu said:

Yes it seems that way. Inflation seems to pay a big role. The rich know how to play the game for the long run and make their money work for them. The average person is lulled into thinking they have been making more money but they are really not. Real inflation is not properly figured in. Taxation is probably the most inflationary item. Especially when you figure in that the various governmental levels are all in debt themselves. That means they can no longer really provide services at the level they have in the past. They have been destroyed by government unions which were never allowed before the Kennedy administration (at least federal level). Politicians are at fault because they placated the unions by overpaying them in in salaries and benefits thus gaining their votes. So here we are. The American people and those of other nations will probably not stand for the austerity needed to right the ship of state. They all want free stuff. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Don't agree with all of what you wrote, but mostly yeah.  

Edited by Zhong Lu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Just take the time to listen to how the global banksters would take care of it quickly https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2608&v=kWjt2DbF_e8

I listened to the first few minutes and quit because it’s propaganda. Politicians will not give up their power to a foreign group. Hell in the US the two parties would never get anything passed unless there were billions of pork to entice a compromise. 

The only thing that keeps the US going is the distrust and sets of billionaires competing to get their voices heard. They will not support the poor or any group that supports the poor. The poor get slivers of change around election time because without at least a chunk of them a politician could not get elected.

Over 100 nations signed the deal cleaning up bunker fuels for ships. A rare global political move. Obviously trade has yet to be worked out. Migrations are a huge thorn. Religion is a huge thorn. Helping the poor on a global scale? Look to Bill Gates before governments. 

This global fear of governments giving up power for the greater good is laughable in my opinion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Boat said:

I listened to the first few minutes and quit because it’s propaganda. Politicians will not give up their power to a foreign group. Hell in the US the two parties would never get anything passed unless there were billions of pork to entice a compromise. 

The only thing that keeps the US going is the distrust and sets of billionaires competing to get their voices heard. They will not support the poor or any group that supports the poor. The poor get slivers of change around election time because without at least a chunk of them a politician could not get elected.

Over 100 nations signed the deal cleaning up bunker fuels for ships. A rare global political move. Obviously trade has yet to be worked out. Migrations are a huge thorn. Religion is a huge thorn. Helping the poor on a global scale? Look to Bill Gates before governments. 

This global fear of governments giving up power for the greater good is laughable in my opinion.

None of this message claims that the banksters are after global good. It claims that they are after global power and control. It states that the climate change "crisis" is false and is just one of the ploys used to gain control.

Poverty is lower than it ever was. Food is more easily available than it ever was. Starvation is less than it ever was. The main health problem in the world today is obesity! Obesity leads to cardiovascular, joint, lung, liver, cancer, diabetes, and many other problems. Another more important health problem is drug abuse and addiction. 

The most important way to help the very poor is to provide basic sanitation, plumbing, clean water, hygiene and public health training. Thousands of missionaries, volunteers, and donors are working to help these problems around the world because those who govern these people are often not making it a priority. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone else noted that this thread never actually addresses the issue of income equality and has veered off into rantism...🤔

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an effort to get back on track here...

Ignoring all criminal activity, the rich will always get richer while the poor will tend to remain poor. This has nothing to do with some Machiavellian plot, it is simply a function of knowledge, common sense, risk taking and having the initial financial position to make use of these traits. It is not one group conspiring against another group.

Whether you are wealthy or not, if you make poor financial decisions, you will likely be poor at some point. By the same token, if you do your homework and are willing to take calculated risks, at some point you may be wealthy.

There is also the old ‘tried but true’ method of simply keeping your nose to the grindstone, having a good work ethic, and working your butt off. You may never be rich, but the chances are that you will never be poor.

In any case, you have to educate yourself, do your homework and make rational, informed decisions to stay out of the poorhouse.

For example, Day Trader practices the black art of financial trading. Apparently he does quite well at this. I would assume that there is a huge amount of risk involved. Obviously he did not just wake up one morning and decide to sit down at his laptop and start trading. First, he would have to be passionate about it, then he would have to educate himself about the intricacies of trading, and then he would have to evaluate the risks involved. More power to him. To me it would be as interesting as watching paint dry. Am I envious of his success or do I blame him for anyone else’s lack of success? Not a chance, he did what wanted to do and reaped the rewards.

I, on the other hand, just fell into what I do. I went to university, got an engineering degree....and couldn’t find a job! I ended up going to South America and working as a crew member on the offshore drilling rigs - it was the only job that I could find! It was also the best thing that ever happened to me. By working ‘from the ground up’, getting real hands on experience, I was able to combine this later with my engineering degree and make a comfortable living as a drilling consultant in some of the less salubrious locations on the planet. I wouldn’t trade places with anyone (...well maybe an F1 driver).

Should Day Trader or myself distribute our wealth with others who are financially not as well off? Why should we? We earned it, let us keep it. If others were not as ‘lucky’, made poor decisions, or simply were not as fortunate as us, that is regrettable, but not our responsibility.

  • Great Response! 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Has anyone else noted that this thread never actually addresses the issue

You could say this about every thread, but sometimes it makes its way back to topic.

I feel like you just gotta roll with it sometimes.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, same can, different wrapper. Let’s discuss the apparent disparity in wages/salaries between genders (there are only two for this discussion.

First, let me state for the record, everything else being equal, regardless of which gender holds the role, the pay should be the same and simply based on the requirements of the job. That is, men and women should be remunerated equally if performing the same job.

Where this all goes haywire is when you throw the issue of pregnancy into the ring. Does a woman have a right to get pregnant and have a family? Of course she does. Does the decision to have a family come with consequences and responsibilities - it should.

Many of the social issues we are experiencing today have their roots in the dissolution of the family unit. Parents either want, or need, to work to support a family. This is helical logic, if you can not afford a family, why did you (the parents) decide to have children?

In a marriage, children may be desired but they are not a necessity. If you make the rational decision to have children, then you, the parents, need to make the necessary sacrifices to raise them correctly and not force society or the public school system to raise them to be beneficial members of the community. Somebody has to stay at home and raise the kids! That indicates that one parent, either the mother OR the father, will likely have to sacrifice their career or work from home.

One of the big issues is maternity leave. This makes perfect sense. The mother needs to stay at home with the newborn for a period of time. But as this will be at least 3 months, and during this period somebody is filling her role, is it logical to expect that her job will be waiting for her when she comes back after three months?

I am not targeting women, but they are the only one of the two genders which can become pregnant.

If we are discussing equality, then men should get the exact same leave when their spouse gives birth...further complicating the issue. Should his job be held for him as well?

After the maternity leave period, the parents need to sit down and discuss which one of them will stay at home to raise the child/children. It does not necessarily need to be the woman.  

At the end of the day, women should be paid the same as men when in the same role and everything else (education, experience and so forth) is equal.

Maternity leave should be up to the employer. The ‘employer’ did not make the decision to have children, the parents did. Every decision we make has consequences. If the company can hold the job until the mother returns to work then that is great. If they can not, then there should be no legal repercussions.

  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Along with a lack of careing and sympathy for the homeless shows its ugly head but on the other hand those homeless given food and a roof need to work and gain skills to join the workforce. 

The old story of giving fish to the poor is not as smart as teaching them how to fish. 

The problem is the money it takes to set up a successful system and enough honest careing people to run it. Then there is the problem of those who abuse any such system and those who try to paint every person in trouble as an abuser. There are no easy answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2019 at 9:00 AM, canadas canadas said:

It's all numbers game anyway you cut it.  I assume that the rich have more money today than ever and the poor have less money today than ever.  Also, there are more rich people than ever and there are also even more poor people than ever.  There are a few people with much and many people with little.  

IMHO the poor today live much as the lower middle class did in the past. Plus they have a much better social net, better medical care, more chances all around. Their problem is that they often do not have two parents, good examples, a positive culture that values education and hard work.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best way to make money is with money.  The poor have no money, so they're permanently screwed in a catch-22.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you should have said, ‘The EASIEST way...’, not always the best, but your point is taken.

My problem is blaming the ‘rich’ for the poor having no money!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2019 at 4:29 PM, Boat said:

Along with a lack of careing and sympathy for the homeless shows its ugly head but on the other hand those homeless given food and a roof need to work and gain skills to join the workforce. 

The old story of giving fish to the poor is not as smart as teaching them how to fish. 

The problem is the money it takes to set up a successful system and enough honest careing people to run it. Then there is the problem of those who abuse any such system and those who try to paint every person in trouble as an abuser. There are no easy answers.

"The old story of giving fish to the poor is not as smart as teaching them how to fish."

What if there are no more fish left to fish?  Then what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/8/2019 at 2:18 AM, Zhong Lu said:

The best way to make money is with money.  The poor have no money, so they're permanently screwed in a catch-22.  

And sometimes those with money blow it all away, especially if they got it easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, canadas canadas said:

"The old story of giving fish to the poor is not as smart as teaching them how to fish."

What if there are no more fish left to fish?  Then what?

Then they starve to death! It’s been that way for millennia! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2019 at 10:07 AM, canadas canadas said:

The nationalization of the banks and the armament industry by the government since these are two areas that the government spends a lot of money on using these institutions and industries while accumulating very big debt on its side in the process.

By the government controlling these key industries that it uses so much, it will be buying from itself and be channeling money back to itself.  

Instead, the government bank lends money to other banks at lower interest, the other banks lends the money at higher interest to the government then the government uses this money to buy armaments.  The winners are the lending banks and the armaments industry. The losers are the government and their central bank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Then they starve to death! It’s been that way for millennia! 

Unfortunately, poverty may exist where natural resources are non-existent or depleted even if the people may be capable of looking after themselves..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it sounds heartless, but this is not my problem.

What do YOU suggest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.