Greenspan(k) - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/22/2004 02:32:55 PM · #27

The company I work at outsourced a key part recently. We had the part made at a union shop in the US previously. The union shop could not control the cost, and quality stunk. They tried to lower the cost but the union blocked all cost saving measures they tried. We could have built it in house in our assembly plant (non-union) for half the cost of the union shop, but in the end we outsourced it to Korea for 1/3 the cost of the union shop (including shipping).
Iâ��d have rather seen us build it on site so we could hire a few more people but the Korean government agreed to buy a lot of our stuff if we gave them the work, and we save more money sending it there so it makes smart business sense to do it.
By lowering the cost of our end product and cutting a deal with the Korean government we are now in a position to sell more product and keep 4,000 people employed here another day.
Butâ�¦ I suppose leaving those union workers employed another year or two until all our customers went elsewhere would have been a much better choice. Who cares about the 4,000 people who didn't have their job outsourced who would have lost their jobs.

Basic economics.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/22/2004 04:29:08 PM · #28

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So one person out of how many thousands of workers at McDonalds makes it big.

Well, apart from the sinlessness of Jesus Christ, if ONE person can do it, OTHERS can.

It is not possible for everyone to be a rich CEO. It is mathematically impossible, and the CEO by definition cannot exist without a huge core of peons for them to supervise.

"ANYONE can grow up to be ..." is a true statement, but it is presented to the masses as if it meant "EVERYONE can grow up to be ..." which is an obvious impossiblity. You cannot have an upper class without an underclass -- there is not enough real wealth to do that.

Just like everyone can't win the lottery ... what if 280,000 people all picked the same winning numbers ... would they all end up with the megabucks jackpot as if only one of them had won? Of course not, they are forced to -- gasp -- redistribute the wealth so that all those deserving get a fair share.

In the NFL they call it revenue-sharing -- every team gets equal shares of the TV money, regardless of market size or the teams performance. In the oil business, it's called the oil depletion allowance -- a refund from the taxpayers because you don't have as much oil left to sell next year.

Somehow, when applied to society to try and ensure that all our kids are fed, cared-for, and educated, we call it socialism.

04/22/2004 04:41:42 PM · #29

Why is it that you want fair share WEALTH redistribution but are opposed to fair share TAXATION? NO, you want the WEALTHY to pay 90% 0f the taxes while at least 50% of the population pay absolutely NO taxes - and in fact many actually get PAID by the government ( the money for which, of course, comes from the taxes paid by the WEALTHY ).

Ron

propaganda_penguin

Olympus C-5060WZ

04/22/2004 09:00:45 PM · #30

Originally posted by RonB:

This is not even close to being accurate. It's the middle/lower class that's paying taxes. The wealthy just backdoor their earnings into offshore investment accounts and non-taxable trust funds, live in corporate tax havens, abuse tax loopholes, etc. This is how professional accountants and good investment brokers stay in business. There's very good money in helping the wealthy avoid having to pay taxes. I personally doubt that the United States upper class is some sort of Santa Claus entity that pays 90% of the wealthiest nation's taxes. If they paid their equivalent like all of their American counterparts below the poverty line, taxation in the US would be a little more sane. And who knows, maybe we'd be able to "downsize" the IRS.

Try going into any slum in any major US city, and tell the first single mom with three jobs and a son in college you meet that "the lower class is too lazy - that's why they're poor", or how the minimum wage hurts big business, and see what kind of reaction you get. Just be sure to avoid dark alleys on your way back to your leather interior Ford Expedition.

Message edited by author 2004-04-22 21:02:02.

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/22/2004 09:06:18 PM · #31

Originally posted by louddog:

Originally posted by pitsaman:

Originally posted by louddog:
I might be wrong, I'm going off memory, but didn't Clinton sign NAFTA into effect?

It's basic economics. If you can buy a gallon of milk for a dollar less, you will. If comapny XYZ can outsource labor to Korea for half the cost, why would you expect them not to? You would do the same thing.

Also note, the companies that don't outsourceand continue to pay high labor costs, have to charge higher prices for their product end up going out of business. Thus everyone that worked there ends up in the unemployment line.

I don't get it?I'm questioning the inteligence here.
Outsourcing =unenployment
Don't outsource=unenployment
So, what is your question?

Outsourcing = lower cost = lower prices = larger market share = smart business.

The company doesn't care if people lose their jobs. Companies exist to make money, not employ people. Employees are a resource to a company and the company uses them and gets rid of them as business dictates.

Not much to understand there.

Maybe it sucks, but that's life. Deal with it and prosper or complain and fight and lose.

I bet you drive Japanese car,just to drive Detroit unions out of bussines !

ScottK

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/22/2004 09:29:27 PM · #32

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Just like everyone can't win the lottery ... what if 280,000 people all picked the same winning numbers ... would they all end up with the megabucks jackpot as if only one of them had won? Of course not, they are forced to -- gasp -- redistribute the wealth so that all those deserving get a fair share.

The liberal lottery: Everyone pays $1 for a ticket. Since everyone tried to win the lottery, everyone deserves their "fair" share of the winnings. So no matter what number is picked (we still pick a number, cause that's the exciting part, right?), the winnings are distributed evenly among all paricipants. After overhead for administration, legislation, ticket sellers, the IRS (gotta pay tax on those winnings), the EPA (gotta pay to clean up all those discarded lottery tickets), FICA, medicare, and all the other deserving governmental agencies, each participant wins a grand total of $0.25.

That was fun, lets play again...

:)

Message edited by author 2004-04-22 21:29:44.

ScottK

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/22/2004 09:41:02 PM · #33

Originally posted by propaganda_penguin:

Try going into any slum in any major US city, and tell the first single mom with three jobs and a son in college you meet that "the lower class is too lazy - that's why they're poor", or how the minimum wage hurts big business, and see what kind of reaction you get. Just be sure to avoid dark alleys on your way back to your leather interior Ford Expedition.

Hey, Ron, I'd love to hear the story of your childhood again. :) And the Propoganda Penguin could use to hear it as well.

propaganda_penguin

Olympus C-5060WZ

04/22/2004 10:14:00 PM · #34

Originally posted by ScottK:

Hey, Ron, I'd love to hear the story of your childhood again. :) And the Propoganda Penguin could use to hear it as well.

If it's a Rags to Riches story, I most definitely would like to hear it. I just wouldn't be able to understand how he could vote GOP with experience like that behind him (unless he actually is filthy rich, which would be a great reason to vote GOP).

I'm sorry, but I just get tired of watching corporate bigwigs hoist up total fluke capitalist success stories when they themselves just had daddy buy them a Yale MBA to get where they are, meanwhile having very little regard for the "bottom rung" that they stand on.

I don't think the rich should be forced to donate to the poor, just that it might do the wealthy good to keep an open mind in regards to whether or not social darwinism is a very dependable theory. (Hey, just look at Bush.)

LoudDog

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/22/2004 10:30:15 PM · #35

Originally posted by pitsaman:

I bet you drive Japanese car,just to drive Detroit unions out of bussines !

Good idea! But nope, only one of my three cars is japanese, but more of that one was made here then the Ford I own...

04/22/2004 11:28:17 PM · #36

Originally posted by propaganda_penguin:

Actually, the 90% / 50% was my idea of what you WANTED, not what actually is. But if you're curious as to what alread IS, here are the stats:

Top 1% of Income Earners Pay 33.89% of all Income Taxes
Top 5% of Income Earners Pay 53.25% of all Income Taxes
Top 10% of Income Earners Pay 64.89% of all Income Taxes
Top 25% of Income Earners Pay 82.90% of all Income Taxes
Top 50% of Income Earners Pay 96.03% of all Income Taxes
Bottom 50% of Income Earners Pay the remaining 3.97% of all Income Taxes
Source: Internal Revenue Service

According to your statement, its the middle/lower class that's paying taxes, so assuming that that would mean that they pay over 50% of the taxes - then that category would include at least 80% of all income earners. The AGI limit to be in the top 10% is $92,754. You call that middle class? The AGI limit at the 25% level is $56,085. Is that lower class?

Originally posted by propaganda_penguin:

You're picking on the wrong guy. I've been in the slums, Ghettos, Shanty-towns, and in far worse neighborhoods than you would find in the U.S. I'm talking about places in third world areas that do not even have running water or electricity, let alone stoves, refrigerators, televisions, etc. like they do in the "slums" here in the U.S. In fact, I've lived a lot of it in my own childhood. My mom was a single mom with FOUR kids - all boys. And we were poor. So what. You can be poor BECAUSE you're lazy, but you can also work hard and still be poor. And there's no disgrace in being poor, but being lazy is another story. And we weren't reared to be lazy. That's why none of my brothers or I are poor any more. Though none of us graduated college, either.

I don't drive a Ford Expedition, and I wouldn't keep one if you gave it to me. And I don't have leather seats - after all, I live in Florida :).

Ron

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/22/2004 11:36:02 PM · #37

The rich pay the lowest percentage of their income in overall taxes. The poor pay the highest percentage, although it's a near-tie with the middle-class.

04/22/2004 11:55:22 PM · #38

Originally posted by propaganda_penguin:

You can find more of my story elsewhere, but here is a little more background. After working in fruit, tobacco, and cleaning used bricks, my first "regular" job was washing dishes in an Italian restaurant for $1.00 an hour ( and all I could eat! ). I worked 21 hours a week ( Friday night 6-1, Saturday night 6-1, and Sundays 3-10 ). That was while I was still in high-school. The week I graduated from high-school ( 4th in my class ) I got a "real" job working in the billing department at the American Thread plant - which also paid $1.00 an hour, but gave me a 40-hour week. My take home was $39.50 - out of which I gave my mother $25 for room and board, paid $12.00 on a car I bought from "Honest Douglas Used Cars", paid $2.00 a week for a suit that I bought on credit, and spent 50 cents for gas to get back and forth to work. Within a year, I received two promotions and raises totalling $10.00 a week. But a little more than a year after I started, I quit to join the Air Force. I Left my mother the car. She sold it.

Ron

04/23/2004 12:22:02 AM · #39

Originally posted by GeneralE:

The rich pay the lowest percentage of their income in overall taxes. The poor pay the highest percentage, although it's a near-tie with the middle-class.

Really? Here are the tax schedules for 2003

Schedule X - Single

$ 0-$ 7,000 = 10%
$ 7,000-$ 28,400 = $ 700.00 +15% of amount over $ 7,000
$ 28,400-$ 68,800 = $ 3,910.00 +25% of amount over $ 28,400
$ 68,800-$143,500 = $14,010.00 +28% of amount over $ 68,800
$143,500-$311,950 = $34,926.00 +33% of amount over $143,500
$311,950 or more = $90,514.00 +35% of amount over $311,950

Schedule Y - Married

$ 0-$ 14,000 = 10%
$ 14,000-$ 56,800 = $ 1,400.00 +15% of amount over $ 14,000
$ 56,800-$114,650 = $ 7,820.00 +25% of amount over $ 56,800
$114,650-$174,700 = $22,282.50 +28% of amount over $114,650
$174,700-$311,950 = $39,096.50 +33% of amount over $174,700
$311,950 or more = $84,389.00 +35% of amount over $311,950

Ron

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/23/2004 12:41:26 AM · #40

Any rich person paying taxes based on the schedules there had better fire their CPA pronto ... or have you never heard of tax shelters, deductions, depreciation, and similar and sundry loopholes available to the wealthier taxpayers, which render any progressiveness in the tax tables meaningless in real-world terms.

Here's (most of) a recent article from the New York Times -- I left off a bit from the end which focused on Mssrs. Bush and Cheney"

A Taxation Policy to Make John Stuart Mill Weep

April 18, 2004
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON

THE income tax returns filed by President Bush and Vice
President Dick Cheney last week highlight in stark detail
several new tax issues that subtly affect all Americans and
that will become increasingly significant in the next few
years.

What's more, their returns demonstrate how far American tax
policy has veered from two classic philosophical insights
about how to finance government: "horizontal equity" and
"vertical equity."

Horizontal equity means that people with similar incomes
and family structures pay similar amounts of tax. Vertical
equity means those who have the greatest capacity to pay
taxes bear the greatest burden.

The idea of basing taxes on the ability to pay dates to
ancient Athens, Maureen B. Cavanaugh, a professor of tax
law at Washington and Lee University, wrote recently.
Athens was a tyranny when it had a flat tax, she wrote, but
democracy flourished once taxes were based on one's ability
to pay. Sylvia Nasar, a journalism professor at Columbia
University who is writing a history of 20th-century
economic philosophers, said that in the 18th and 19th
centuries, "Adam Smith, John Locke, James Mill and John
Stuart Mill all supported the broad tax principles of
horizontal equity, vertical equity, transparency and
efficiency."

Today, Professor Cavanaugh said, the debate on tax policy
largely ignores these principles. A look at the tax returns
filed by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney demonstrates that shift.
Mr. Bush and his wife, Laura, paid 27.7 percent of their
total income in federal income taxes, about the same as the
average taxpayer earning $500,000 to $1 million a year. Mr.
Cheney and his wife, Lynne, however, paid 19 percent, far
below the average of more than 29 percent for those in the
$1 million to $2 million income group.

Even more striking, when their interest from tax-exempt
bonds is added, the Cheneys paid just 12.7 percent of their
total income in federal income taxes. The Cheneys paid such
a low rate because in recent years Congress has cut tax
rates - more so on dividends than on wages. Horizontal
equity is the critical concept that motivates Americans to
comply with the tax laws, according to John O. Fox, who
teaches tax policy at Mount Holyoke College. And as
horizontal equity is reduced, he said, more cheating is
encouraged. "We have more and more cheating not because we
are bad people, but because people have concluded that the
system does not treat equals fairly," he said.

Daniel J. Mitchell, a tax policy specialist at the Heritage
Foundation, which favors lower taxes on investments, said
recent changes in tax policy have increased horizontal
inequity. He said classic tax theory is virtually absent
from corporate tax policy, too, such as the
administration's energy bills and proposals to change how
exports are taxed. He said few tax bills are "based on what
politicians think is good policy." Rather, he said, "it is
all just special interests and who is whining the most."

The Bush and Cheney returns also show the collapse of
vertical equity, under which one's tax burden rises with
income and which the libertarian Cato Institute calls a
"bedrock American principle."

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/23/2004 12:46:47 AM · #41

This article was even better, but it's too old to access for free, and I don't have the disposable income to pay the Times $2.95 to access it:
===============================================================
WEEK IN REVIEW DESK | April 11, 2004, Sunday
Page Two; Time to Pay Taxes, but Who Is Really Paying?

By Matthew Miller (NYT) 401 words
Late Edition - Final , Section 4 , Page 2 , Column 1
DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 401 WORDS - WITH April 15, comes the perennial debate over the fairness of the tax burden. Liberals say the rich pay too little; conservatives argue that the rich get soaked.

propaganda_penguin

Olympus C-5060WZ

04/23/2004 05:20:16 AM · #42

Originally posted by RonB:

Actually, the 90% / 50% was my idea of what you WANTED, not what actually is.

For the record, I never said I "wanted" anything. But so long as we're here, I think the wealthy should be paying 90% of the taxes if they represent 90% of the country's wealth. (With how things are going now, that might not be that far away...)

Originally posted by RonB:

According to your statement, its the middle/lower class that's paying taxes, so assuming that that would mean that they pay over 50% of the taxes - then that category would include at least 80% of all income earners. The AGI limit to be in the top 10% is $92,754. You call that middle class? The AGI limit at the 25% level is $56,085. Is that lower class?

I may not have been that clear, but that was the most literal interpretation of an exaggeration possible. I was stating that the wealthy much more often than not skip out on paying their share of taxes relative to their wealth, and the middle class/poor don't have that option. This obviously results in the non-wealthy paying a disproportionate amount of the nation's taxes relative to the nation's collective income, due to so much of the wealthy's money going unaccounted for. That blurb about Dick Cheney above is the perfect example. But I guess what Americans don't know can't hurt them, right?

I makes me wonder what would happen if we went to a tax structure based around people's earnings-proportionate ability to weasel out of taxes. Uncle Sam would get his money, and crooked CEOs could still indulge in corporate America's favorite pastime (tax fraud).

I'm actually surprised that the IRS numbers you posted weren't even more in favor of the poor, due to the distribution of wealth in the US. Although it does add credibility to them actually being the IRS' numbers.

Originally posted by RonB:

You're picking on the wrong guy.

My mistake. I definitely congratulate you though, on kicking enough ass to at least achieve the economic stability to argue with American liberals about taxation over the internet. Blessing or curse?

(I myself am actually a libertarian, albiet one of the more left-leaning ones.)

Message edited by author 2004-04-23 05:22:31.

04/23/2004 09:50:18 AM · #43

Originally posted by GeneralE:

While I will readily acknowledge that some, even many, high-income earners shelter some of their income through tax-exempt bonds, etc., I'm going to focus on just one paragraph of the Times article

Originally posted by Times:

A look at the tax returns filed by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney demonstrates that shift.
Mr. Bush and his wife, Laura, paid 27.7 percent of their total income in federal income taxes, about the same as the average taxpayer earning $500,000 to $1 million a year.

( emphasis mine ).

Note specifically that the article states that 27.7% of total income is average for those earning $500,000 to $1 million a year.

Now according to the tax tables, that group should be paying close to 35% of AGI. I don't think that it's a stretch to see how itemizing deductions could result in 35% of AGI being around the same as 27% of total income. For example: if total income was $100,000, and itemized deductions were $22,000, the AGI would be $78,000. 35% of $78,000 is $27,300, quite close to 27% of the total $100,000. And, as the article points out that is the AVERAGE paid by those income earners.

Contrast that with the tables that show that the MAXIMUM tax rate on "low income earners" is only 10%, and even "middle income earners" is only 25%. That's the MAXIMUM, not the AVERAGE. And that's on AGI, not gross. Surely, when you hit middle income brackets, there is itemization of deductions taking place. That should be proof enough that higher income earners pay more "percentage wise" than lower income earners, on average.

Ron

Message edited by author 2004-04-23 09:52:52.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/23/2004 10:02:40 AM · #44

Ron--Like I said, I can't afford to pay the three dollars to reprint the reference for you, but the article I referenced (but didn't reprint) included an actual analysis of which groups of taxpayers paid what, in real money, not projections or assumptions or extimates based on reading IRS forms, and that analysis reveals that the rich pay a lower percentage of their income than the lower classes.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

04/23/2004 10:50:10 AM · #45

Ron, I first want to congratulate you on your climb out of poverty and subsequent successes in life. You are to be commended and applauded.

While I donâ�� t know your entire story, from what I have read above, it sounds that while you may have come out of financial poverty, you may have also come out of a very rich and rewarding environment, that is often not available to many today. That is, that you came out of a strong family background, with a strong mother who cared about you and your brothers, loved you all, made sure that needs were met to the best extent they could, and made you all feel part of something and wanted. A positive family life and environment cannot be overstated in its importance for the future successes of the individual and society.

A strong family connection not only helps the individual to attain competence in her/his life, but also self worth, meaning and happiness, and being generally well adjusted. Such an individual will most likely deal with others and society in a positive and mutually beneficial manner. WITHOUT a strong family a person could develop to be a spiritually (however you define that), psychologically, emotionally and physically bankrupt individual. The family unit today is more eroded and diminished than during the time you grew up (although Iâ��m not entirely sure when that was, but will guess at the 50â��sâ�¦forgive me if Iâ��m wrong). Extended families that once lived in close proximity to each other and helped support each other have been thinned by geographic difference and communities, which also served to support families have also been destroyed, and been replaced by government and corporations. Other influences that exist today, such as, drugs, poor schools, poor nutrition, television, corruption in govt. and corporations, etc. can also unduly effect a child in the negative.

I too have worked with, and cared for, people living in ghettos and also know what they are up against. Even if a child grows up in a two-parent household, I have seen many situations where the parents themselves were addicts and could not give in any kind of emotional or financial way to their children.
I find your declaration of a dichotomy, and value judgement, between individuals working hard while living in poverty as opposed to being poor BECAUSE of laziness to be simplistic and troublesome. Do you really think that these people have character flaws that are causing them to be lazy and unproductive? Do you think a child comes into this world wanting to not interact with the world positively and get ahead in life? Do you think that the welfare state is the cause of this malady? Do you really think that so many of these people donâ��t work hard? Just because some channels may be open to some to improve their lot in life doesnâ��t mean itâ��s open to all or that all can take advantage of them.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by propaganda_penguin:
This is not even close to being accurate. It's the middle/lower class that's paying taxes. The wealthy just backdoor their earnings into offshore investment accounts and non-taxable trust funds, live in corporate tax havens, abuse tax loopholes, etc. This is how professional accountants and good investment brokers stay in business. There's very good money in helping the wealthy avoid having to pay taxes. I personally doubt that the United States upper class is some sort of Santa Claus entity that pays 90% of the wealthiest nation's taxes. If they paid their equivalent like all of their American counterparts below the poverty line, taxation in the US would be a little more sane. And who knows, maybe we'd be able to "downsize" the IRS.

Actually, the 90% / 50% was my idea of what you WANTED, not what actually is. But if you're curious as to what alread IS, here are the stats:

Top 1% of Income Earners Pay 33.89% of all Income Taxes
Top 5% of Income Earners Pay 53.25% of all Income Taxes
Top 10% of Income Earners Pay 64.89% of all Income Taxes
Top 25% of Income Earners Pay 82.90% of all Income Taxes
Top 50% of Income Earners Pay 96.03% of all Income Taxes
Bottom 50% of Income Earners Pay the remaining 3.97% of all Income Taxes
Source: Internal Revenue Service

According to your statement, its the middle/lower class that's paying taxes, so assuming that that would mean that they pay over 50% of the taxes - then that category would include at least 80% of all income earners. The AGI limit to be in the top 10% is $92,754. You call that middle class? The AGI limit at the 25% level is $56,085. Is that lower class?

Originally posted by propaganda_penguin:
Try going into any slum in any major US city, and tell the first single mom with three jobs and a son in college you meet that "the lower class is too lazy - that's why they're poor", or how the minimum wage hurts big business, and see what kind of reaction you get. Just be sure to avoid dark alleys on your way back to your leather interior Ford Expedition.

You're picking on the wrong guy. I've been in the slums, Ghettos, Shanty-towns, and in far worse neighborhoods than you would find in the U.S. I'm talking about places in third world areas that do not even have running water or electricity, let alone stoves, refrigerators, televisions, etc. like they do in the "slums" here in the U.S. In fact, I've lived a lot of it in my own childhood. My mom was a single mom with FOUR kids - all boys. And we were poor. So what. You can be poor BECAUSE you're lazy, but you can also work hard and still be poor. And there's no disgrace in being poor, but being lazy is another story. And we weren't reared to be lazy. That's why none of my brothers or I are poor any more. Though none of us graduated college, either.

I don't drive a Ford Expedition, and I wouldn't keep one if you gave it to me. And I don't have leather seats - after all, I live in Florida :).

Ron

04/23/2004 10:50:41 AM · #46

Originally posted by GeneralE:

You don't have to pay the $2.95. You can read the entire article HERE for free.

Note that the chart in that article says that, even WITH the taxes other than income taxes, the rich pay more: To wit:

Top 1% earn 17% and pay 36% of income tax and 23% of all taxes
Top 5% earn 31% and pay 57% of income tax and 40% of all taxes
Top 10% earn 42% and pay 68% of income tax and 52% of all taxes
Top 20% earn 59% and pay 83% of income tax and 69% of all taxes
Bottom 80% earn 41% and pay 17% of income tax and 31% of all taxes

Note that in all of the TOP categories the % of all taxes paid is GREATER than the % of earnings, but that in the BOTTOM 80% category the % of taxes paid is LESS than the % of earnings.

Ron

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

04/23/2004 11:36:26 AM · #47

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Sorry to disappoint you, but my "strong family background" wasn't. My father deserted us when I was about 7 years old and my "strong" mother only stayed that way because whenever we misbehaved we saw her big black leather belt ( with studs ) up close and personal. She cared about us not as a nurturing mother, but as one who tolerated no disrespect or disobedience to her, other adults, and especially teachers and others in authority. My oldest brother didn't take to being disciplined well - he ended up in jail for several years - but learned valuable lessons there and turned out just fine once he was released. My next older brother just floated through life and works today as a janitor in a bowling alley ( not to demean his job, for I feel that all honest work is honorable ). My younger brother was kicked out of school and learned his life's lessons in the military and has done quite well for himself since. So while I agree that family can be a great influence, it is not the be all and end all. More depends on the individual than the circumstance, as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

A strong family connection not only helps the individual to attain competence in her/his life, but also self worth, meaning and happiness, and being generally well adjusted. Such an individual will most likely deal with others and society in a positive and mutually beneficial manner. WITHOUT a strong family a person could develop to be a spiritually (however you define that), psychologically, emotionally and physically bankrupt individual.

Yes, and WITHOUT a strong family, a person could also develop to be a spiritually, psychologically, emotionally, and physically STRONG individual.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

The family unit today is more eroded and diminished than during the time you grew up (although Iâ��m not entirely sure when that was, but will guess at the 50â��sâ�¦forgive me if Iâ��m wrong). Extended families that once lived in close proximity to each other and helped support each other have been thinned by geographic difference and communities, which also served to support families have also been destroyed, and been replaced by government and corporations. Other influences that exist today, such as, drugs, poor schools, poor nutrition, television, corruption in govt. and corporations, etc. can also unduly effect a child in the negative.

Again, sorry to disappoint you, but I attended a one-room schoolhouse where the teacher maintained discipline with a ruler and a cloakroom. Minor misdemeanors were met with a slap of the ruler across your knuckles, greater misdemeanors got you sentenced to the cloakroom for a period of time relative to the degree of misbehavior. BTW, We got ONE new shirt and ONE new pair of pants each fall when we went back to school - everything else we got from the Salvation Army.
Nutrition? For most of my elementary years we ate boiled rice for breakfast with reconstituted dehydrated milk because we couldn't afford cereal or "real" milk, and we ate a LOT of spaghetti and potatoes because we couldn't afford meat. The only reason I could afford to buy milk for lunch at school ( 7 cents ) was because I worked as the "cashier" for the other kids who bought milk - the teacher knew I couldn't afford the milk, so "gave" me that job ( I think that, in reality, she paid the 7 cents for me ). So don't talk to me of the "nutrition" problem.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I too have worked with, and cared for, people living in ghettos and also know what they are up against. Even if a child grows up in a two-parent household, I have seen many situations where the parents themselves were addicts and could not give in any kind of emotional or financial way to their children.
I find your declaration of a dichotomy, and value judgement, between individuals working hard while living in poverty as opposed to being poor BECAUSE of laziness to be simplistic and troublesome. Do you really think that these people have character flaws that are causing them to be lazy and unproductive? Do you think a child comes into this world wanting to not interact with the world positively and get ahead in life? Do you think that the welfare state is the cause of this malady? Do you really think that so many of these people donâ��t work hard? Just because some channels may be open to some to improve their lot in life doesnâ��t mean itâ��s open to all or that all can take advantage of them.

Many interesting and valid observations. But to be perfectly honest, 1) Yes, I do think that lazy, unproductive people have a character flaw. 2) Yes I do think that the welfare state is a contributing cause of this "malady". 3) Yes, I really do think that a large number of "these people" don't work hard. 4) Yes, I really do think that "some channels" are open to all and that all can take advantage of them, IF THEY WANT TO. Maybe not in some countries, but it the U.S. they can.

Ron

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

04/23/2004 01:05:07 PM · #48

Thanks for your personal story, Ron...You are exceptional.
What do you think motivated you to climb out of your predicament when it would have been so easy to succumb?