5 ms·

By the middle of this article, I felt refreshed to be reading something that seemed to be saying, "There are people who struggle economically, but that's okay -

by regal 13y ago

By the middle of this article, I felt refreshed to be reading something that seemed to be saying, "There are people who struggle economically, but that's okay - the world is an imperfect place, and people take their own lives down their own paths that make them better or worse." Into the second half though, the overtones began to paint a very Upton Sinclair-like story of crushing, inescapable poverty, and ultimately the piece ends with the same message The Jungle ends with: it's unfair that some people make a lot more money than other people do. And I'm left with the same question I always have for these arguments: Mr. Article Writer, how much of your income would YOU like to give to the heroes of these stories? Everybody always wants to say, "Oh it's so sad that these people are suffering," and then generously volunteer that someone else pay for it: "Hey! Why don't we make THAT guy give that OTHER guy his money!" Nobody ever offers his own money, though. Wonder why that is...

jwillgoesfast 13y ago
I agree. But, there is some value in "Advocacy" for people in this position. Although, that card is probably played out by now and its cliche/annoying unless someone actually proposes or better yet is actively involved in a solution. There is a 2000 year old book that basically says "There will always be the poor" --not sure exactly what that means, but it kinda makes sense. For me, I've tried both large scale and small scale ways of helping "the poor" and I've developed the model of: 1. help people when you can & however you are able...It probably won't help them long-term though but maybe thats ok. 2. A few of those folks really are motivated to change their life for the better, so when you help them, it may pay off for the greater good. Either way, studies show that helping others and "giving to a good cause" typically pays off higher "happiness dividends" than selfishly spending money on yourself (unless its for a new smartphone or laptop of course :))
enraged_camel 13y ago
Are you saying that a writer at a newspaper who makes median income is actually in a position to give some of that income to poor families, versus a CEO who makes $15 million a year?
- tomjen3 13y ago
  His meaning was quite clear from what he wrote. If you must, argue against his points, don't just appeal to emotions - they are never useful for conducting policy.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    I'm not appealing to emotion. My question is rather simple and I want him/her to answer it.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    It's not just an appeal to emotion, there's a valid point in enraged_camel's post. It's not hypocrisy to defend redistribution only by people who own more than X, even if that X is above the author's income. There's a qualitative difference between owning a median income and "fuck you money". regal's point, on the other hand, is not only completely speculative, as it's completely irrelevant, because the argument isn't invalidated even if stated by an hypocrite.
  - fudisgud 13y ago
    scoff Funny you're complaining about that comment: This whole piece is one big emotion appeal for class warfare and unionism "If only Little Johnny's parent's union jobs didn't disappear, then he wouldn't have lived in a broken home, and would have buckled down and gone to college!" "Why does this group of people, who I know little about as individuals, have it so well?!" Typical bleeding-heart bull, which is, of course, what this movie is about (and how this author barkers for his friend's movie). "Come one, and all, see how unfair life is in America!" It's too bad these families both work so hard and barely get by. Maybe they did get screwed over by circumstance. Maybe they shouldn't had assume union jobs were forever. Maybe the lure of a paying job today to help the family kept those kids out of college. Or maybe those kids were fuck ups and didn't take school seriously. I guess I should pay for a ticket to find out if I should feel superior to the family or to the CEOs. Complaining about how life is unfair will get folks into the art movie theater, but it's not going to provide opportunities for these families to better their lot.
- 13y ago
jshen 13y ago
"And lurking at the bottom of this morass one finds flagrantly irrational ideas about the human condition. Many of my critics pretend that they have been entirely self-made. They seem to feel responsible for their intellectual gifts, for their freedom from injury and disease, and for the fact that they were born at a specific moment in history. Many appear to have absolutely no awareness of how lucky one must be to succeed at anything in life, no matter how hard one works. One must be lucky to be able to work. One must be lucky to be intelligent, to not have cerebral palsy, or to not have been bankrupted in middle age by the mortal illness of a spouse. Many of us have been extraordinarily lucky—and we did not earn it. Many good people have been extraordinarily unlucky—and they did not deserve it. And yet I get the distinct sense that if I asked some of my readers why they weren’t born with club feet, or orphaned before the age of five, they would not hesitate to take credit for these accomplishments. There is a stunning lack of insight into the unfolding of human events that passes for moral and economic wisdom in some circles. And it is pernicious. Followers of Rand, in particular, believe that only a blind reliance on market forces and the narrowest conception of self interest can steer us collectively toward the best civilization possible and that any attempt to impose wisdom or compassion from the top—no matter who is at the top and no matter what the need—is necessarily corrupting of the whole enterprise. This conviction is, at the very least, unproven. And there are many reasons to believe that it is dangerously wrong." http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-lose-readers-without-even-trying/ http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-lose-readers-witho...
- mistermann 13y ago
  Q: What was Ayn Rand’s view on charity? A: My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue. [From “Playboy’s 1964 interview with Ayn Rand”] > Followers of Rand, in particular, believe that only a blind reliance on market forces and the narrowest conception of self interest can steer us collectively toward the best civilization possible and that any attempt to impose wisdom or compassion from the top—no matter who is at the top and no matter what the need—is necessarily corrupting of the whole enterprise. Most critics of Rand that I encounter base their opinion on an incorrect caricature that is reinforced by other critics repeating the same incorrect untruths. I consider myself to be generally in agreement with most of Rand's philosophy, but am nothing like your description of her followers. Granted, a lot of her advocates are purely self-interested idiots, but it wasn't Rand's teachings that brought them to that state.
icebraining 13y ago
That's no true, plenty of people who support legally enforced redistribution also donate money to charities.
zafka 13y ago
I think your opinion of what this piece implies is a bit skewed. I see this scenario played out over and over everywhere I look. I happen to be one of the lucky ones, I won the genetic lottery, and the geographic one too. I expect to be able to make a decent living at least until the brain rot sets in. The sad fact is though, at least it appears to me, is that there will be fewer jobs for the majority of the population every year. At the same time the wealth that society as a whole is producing is accumulating at an increasing rate. I do not think the author of this article wants everyone else to shoulder the plight of the masses. I think that he, like many others suggest that society as a whole considers a method to allocate a portion of our GDP to those who have been eliminated from the game. The most ironic part of this ongoing discussion, it that the people around me who are most vocal about letting "these parasites" fend for themselves, are the next group that will be in the same boat. Yes, many of these "hard working" design engineers who paid their way through the public supported universities, will not be needed when the tech evolves just a little bit more. Then the lower 85% will be the extraneous work force, and the beat goes on.
mistermann 13y ago
I really don't like this argument. First, advocacy of an idea is good in itself. Second, the advocate putting their money where their mouth is will only impoverish them self while making very little change. However, if overall society was to adopt a united approach to it, the results would be very different. I'm not going to give up 10% of my income if it's just me doing it, but if everyone is doing it, I'd be willing (assuming there is a non-stupid plan for how to spend it, which is not likely).
Nursie 13y ago
Not everyone makes their own path. Some have paths chosen for them by genetics or simply by misfortune. And amongst those that have chosen the wrong path, is it reasonable in such a rich society that they should have to be selling blood plasma to keep food on the table? I don't think it's unfair that some make more than others do. I think it's unfair that many are scratching around for money for the bills and enough to eat, when we have a society of riches and excess beyond anything seen before in history. So I offer my own money in the form of taxes. We know from history that when welfare is entirely down to charity we get a shortfall, a growing underclass, mass criminality, workhouses, inescapable poverty etc etc.
- llamataboot 13y ago
  It's also worth pointing out that social mobility in the US is very low.[1]The single greatest predictor to your future wealth is your parent's wealth, which obviously you had nothing to do with. 1) http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2009/08/social-mobility.html http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2009/08/social-mobi...
  - HeyLaughingBoy 13y ago
    As the middle-class son of an uneducated single mother who didn't get a high-school diploma until after I did, I'm having a little trouble buying that...
    - sherr 13y ago
      There actually seems to be quite a lot of evidence for the US having a low social mobility. I recall some articles a while back in The Economist about it [1][2], something that surprised me a few years ago. Not any more. It doesn't take long to find many reports detailing this. [1] http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571417-how-prevent-virtuous-meritocracy-entrenching-itself-top-repairing-rungs http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571417-how-prevent-v... [2] http://www.economist.com/node/21571399 http://www.economist.com/node/21571399
    - justin66 13y ago
ExpiredLink 13y ago
> Nobody ever offers his own money, though. Nobody needs to offer his own money, though. You give a moral answer to a social conflict. You miss the point.
bryanlarsen 13y ago
Warren Buffet is a noted advocate for higher taxes, and very few people have more to lose from higher taxes than he does.
wisty 13y ago
> Nobody ever offers his own money, though. A lot of people offer their money. Most countries have social security systems, which were voted in by people who stand to lose money over them. If I give a homeless guy $10,000, that won't stop all the other homeless guys from causing me all the problems that they cause (like not buying enough stuff to provide me with a better job, or clogging up the local emergency ward because they got pneumonia). But if I conspire (with a few fellow voters) to give $10,000 to all the homeless guys, then the problem is partially solved. And it's not like all these countries with social security nets are forcing rich people to pay for it. It's no secret that the truly rich often don't pay taxes.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  And it's not like all these countries with social security nets are forcing rich people to pay for it. This is very true. America leans more heavily on the rich to pay for government than the rest of the OECD. Only Australia even comes close. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-households-much-us http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-...
  - gizmo 13y ago
    Those stats are extremely misleading, because in the US the rich are also disproportional beneficiaries of their tax money (compared to other countries). In the US the rich pay taxes for schools they end up with better schools in their neighborhood. And they get better parks, and better libraries and better everything in rich neighborhoods. Very little of that money ends up improving poorer neighborhoods, so in the US rich people pay those taxes mostly to themselves. The taxes aren't very re-distributive, which defeats the point of progressive taxation. Tax deductions in the US also go disproportionately to rich people, whereas in Europe there are many big tax breaks for poor and middle class families. So it's absolutely not the case that the US has the most progressive tax system among industrialized nations (as claimed in the linked article). Only when you creatively slice and dice the data can you arrive at such a conclusion.
    - 13y ago
ams6110 13y ago
On top of that, I have never heard a convincing argument that some people are poor because other people are rich.
anigbrowl 13y ago
And I'm left with the same question I always have for these arguments: Mr. Article Writer, how much of your income would YOU like to give to the heroes of these stories? About 25%. I'm OK with a tax level of between 35-40% on a moderate (>$50k) income, and I'd like about 75% of that to be spent on helping other people especially through education and healthcare) and the other 25% to be spent on things like defense, NASA, cops and so on, that's meant to benefit everyone. I'm willing to negotiate these various percentages, within reason. When I can, I pay a bit more tax than I absolutely have to because it makes me feel good, although some years I don't earn that much and I just pay what I have to. I'm not demanding that you must pay much more tax, but I am happy to pay a moderate amount and then a bit extra if I can afford it. Does that answer your question?

by regal 13y ago

jwillgoesfast 13y ago

I agree. But, there is some value in "Advocacy" for people in this position. Although, that card is probably played out by now and its cliche/annoying unless someone actually proposes or better yet is actively involved in a solution. There is a 2000 year old book that basically says "There will always be the poor" --not sure exactly what that means, but it kinda makes sense. For me, I've tried both large scale and small scale ways of helping "the poor" and I've developed the model of: 1. help people when you can & however you are able...It probably won't help them long-term though but maybe thats ok. 2. A few of those folks really are motivated to change their life for the better, so when you help them, it may pay off for the greater good. Either way, studies show that helping others and "giving to a good cause" typically pays off higher "happiness dividends" than selfishly spending money on yourself (unless its for a new smartphone or laptop of course :))

enraged_camel 13y ago

Are you saying that a writer at a newspaper who makes median income is actually in a position to give some of that income to poor families, versus a CEO who makes $15 million a year?

tomjen3 13y ago
His meaning was quite clear from what he wrote. If you must, argue against his points, don't just appeal to emotions - they are never useful for conducting policy.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  I'm not appealing to emotion. My question is rather simple and I want him/her to answer it.
- icebraining 13y ago
  It's not just an appeal to emotion, there's a valid point in enraged_camel's post. It's not hypocrisy to defend redistribution only by people who own more than X, even if that X is above the author's income. There's a qualitative difference between owning a median income and "fuck you money". regal's point, on the other hand, is not only completely speculative, as it's completely irrelevant, because the argument isn't invalidated even if stated by an hypocrite.
- fudisgud 13y ago
  scoff Funny you're complaining about that comment: This whole piece is one big emotion appeal for class warfare and unionism "If only Little Johnny's parent's union jobs didn't disappear, then he wouldn't have lived in a broken home, and would have buckled down and gone to college!" "Why does this group of people, who I know little about as individuals, have it so well?!" Typical bleeding-heart bull, which is, of course, what this movie is about (and how this author barkers for his friend's movie). "Come one, and all, see how unfair life is in America!" It's too bad these families both work so hard and barely get by. Maybe they did get screwed over by circumstance. Maybe they shouldn't had assume union jobs were forever. Maybe the lure of a paying job today to help the family kept those kids out of college. Or maybe those kids were fuck ups and didn't take school seriously. I guess I should pay for a ticket to find out if I should feel superior to the family or to the CEOs. Complaining about how life is unfair will get folks into the art movie theater, but it's not going to provide opportunities for these families to better their lot.
13y ago

jshen 13y ago

"And lurking at the bottom of this morass one finds flagrantly irrational ideas about the human condition. Many of my critics pretend that they have been entirely self-made. They seem to feel responsible for their intellectual gifts, for their freedom from injury and disease, and for the fact that they were born at a specific moment in history. Many appear to have absolutely no awareness of how lucky one must be to succeed at anything in life, no matter how hard one works. One must be lucky to be able to work. One must be lucky to be intelligent, to not have cerebral palsy, or to not have been bankrupted in middle age by the mortal illness of a spouse. Many of us have been extraordinarily lucky—and we did not earn it. Many good people have been extraordinarily unlucky—and they did not deserve it. And yet I get the distinct sense that if I asked some of my readers why they weren’t born with club feet, or orphaned before the age of five, they would not hesitate to take credit for these accomplishments. There is a stunning lack of insight into the unfolding of human events that passes for moral and economic wisdom in some circles. And it is pernicious. Followers of Rand, in particular, believe that only a blind reliance on market forces and the narrowest conception of self interest can steer us collectively toward the best civilization possible and that any attempt to impose wisdom or compassion from the top—no matter who is at the top and no matter what the need—is necessarily corrupting of the whole enterprise. This conviction is, at the very least, unproven. And there are many reasons to believe that it is dangerously wrong." http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-lose-readers-without-even-trying/ http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-lose-readers-witho...

mistermann 13y ago
Q: What was Ayn Rand’s view on charity? A: My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue. [From “Playboy’s 1964 interview with Ayn Rand”] > Followers of Rand, in particular, believe that only a blind reliance on market forces and the narrowest conception of self interest can steer us collectively toward the best civilization possible and that any attempt to impose wisdom or compassion from the top—no matter who is at the top and no matter what the need—is necessarily corrupting of the whole enterprise. Most critics of Rand that I encounter base their opinion on an incorrect caricature that is reinforced by other critics repeating the same incorrect untruths. I consider myself to be generally in agreement with most of Rand's philosophy, but am nothing like your description of her followers. Granted, a lot of her advocates are purely self-interested idiots, but it wasn't Rand's teachings that brought them to that state.

icebraining 13y ago

That's no true, plenty of people who support legally enforced redistribution also donate money to charities.

zafka 13y ago

I think your opinion of what this piece implies is a bit skewed. I see this scenario played out over and over everywhere I look. I happen to be one of the lucky ones, I won the genetic lottery, and the geographic one too. I expect to be able to make a decent living at least until the brain rot sets in. The sad fact is though, at least it appears to me, is that there will be fewer jobs for the majority of the population every year. At the same time the wealth that society as a whole is producing is accumulating at an increasing rate. I do not think the author of this article wants everyone else to shoulder the plight of the masses. I think that he, like many others suggest that society as a whole considers a method to allocate a portion of our GDP to those who have been eliminated from the game. The most ironic part of this ongoing discussion, it that the people around me who are most vocal about letting "these parasites" fend for themselves, are the next group that will be in the same boat. Yes, many of these "hard working" design engineers who paid their way through the public supported universities, will not be needed when the tech evolves just a little bit more. Then the lower 85% will be the extraneous work force, and the beat goes on.

mistermann 13y ago

I really don't like this argument. First, advocacy of an idea is good in itself. Second, the advocate putting their money where their mouth is will only impoverish them self while making very little change. However, if overall society was to adopt a united approach to it, the results would be very different. I'm not going to give up 10% of my income if it's just me doing it, but if everyone is doing it, I'd be willing (assuming there is a non-stupid plan for how to spend it, which is not likely).

Nursie 13y ago

Not everyone makes their own path. Some have paths chosen for them by genetics or simply by misfortune. And amongst those that have chosen the wrong path, is it reasonable in such a rich society that they should have to be selling blood plasma to keep food on the table? I don't think it's unfair that some make more than others do. I think it's unfair that many are scratching around for money for the bills and enough to eat, when we have a society of riches and excess beyond anything seen before in history. So I offer my own money in the form of taxes. We know from history that when welfare is entirely down to charity we get a shortfall, a growing underclass, mass criminality, workhouses, inescapable poverty etc etc.

llamataboot 13y ago
It's also worth pointing out that social mobility in the US is very low.[1]The single greatest predictor to your future wealth is your parent's wealth, which obviously you had nothing to do with. 1) http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2009/08/social-mobility.html http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2009/08/social-mobi...
- HeyLaughingBoy 13y ago
  As the middle-class son of an uneducated single mother who didn't get a high-school diploma until after I did, I'm having a little trouble buying that...
  - sherr 13y ago
    There actually seems to be quite a lot of evidence for the US having a low social mobility. I recall some articles a while back in The Economist about it [1][2], something that surprised me a few years ago. Not any more. It doesn't take long to find many reports detailing this. [1] http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571417-how-prevent-virtuous-meritocracy-entrenching-itself-top-repairing-rungs http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571417-how-prevent-v... [2] http://www.economist.com/node/21571399 http://www.economist.com/node/21571399
  - justin66 13y ago

ExpiredLink 13y ago

> Nobody ever offers his own money, though. Nobody needs to offer his own money, though. You give a moral answer to a social conflict. You miss the point.

bryanlarsen 13y ago

Warren Buffet is a noted advocate for higher taxes, and very few people have more to lose from higher taxes than he does.

wisty 13y ago

> Nobody ever offers his own money, though. A lot of people offer their money. Most countries have social security systems, which were voted in by people who stand to lose money over them. If I give a homeless guy $10,000, that won't stop all the other homeless guys from causing me all the problems that they cause (like not buying enough stuff to provide me with a better job, or clogging up the local emergency ward because they got pneumonia). But if I conspire (with a few fellow voters) to give $10,000 to all the homeless guys, then the problem is partially solved. And it's not like all these countries with social security nets are forcing rich people to pay for it. It's no secret that the truly rich often don't pay taxes.

yummyfajitas 13y ago
And it's not like all these countries with social security nets are forcing rich people to pay for it. This is very true. America leans more heavily on the rich to pay for government than the rest of the OECD. Only Australia even comes close. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-households-much-us http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-...
- gizmo 13y ago
  Those stats are extremely misleading, because in the US the rich are also disproportional beneficiaries of their tax money (compared to other countries). In the US the rich pay taxes for schools they end up with better schools in their neighborhood. And they get better parks, and better libraries and better everything in rich neighborhoods. Very little of that money ends up improving poorer neighborhoods, so in the US rich people pay those taxes mostly to themselves. The taxes aren't very re-distributive, which defeats the point of progressive taxation. Tax deductions in the US also go disproportionately to rich people, whereas in Europe there are many big tax breaks for poor and middle class families. So it's absolutely not the case that the US has the most progressive tax system among industrialized nations (as claimed in the linked article). Only when you creatively slice and dice the data can you arrive at such a conclusion.
  - 13y ago

ams6110 13y ago

On top of that, I have never heard a convincing argument that some people are poor because other people are rich.

anigbrowl 13y ago

And I'm left with the same question I always have for these arguments: Mr. Article Writer, how much of your income would YOU like to give to the heroes of these stories? About 25%. I'm OK with a tax level of between 35-40% on a moderate (>$50k) income, and I'd like about 75% of that to be spent on helping other people especially through education and healthcare) and the other 25% to be spent on things like defense, NASA, cops and so on, that's meant to benefit everyone. I'm willing to negotiate these various percentages, within reason. When I can, I pay a bit more tax than I absolutely have to because it makes me feel good, although some years I don't earn that much and I just pay what I have to. I'm not demanding that you must pay much more tax, but I am happy to pay a moderate amount and then a bit extra if I can afford it. Does that answer your question?