What do you want to do with the little people?

[Loren Pechtel]

Oh for fucks sake. The instant someone is born, they inherit whatever financial safety net their family can provide. A person with upper middle class parents can take huge risks without even pausing to recognise them. A person whose parents cannot afford to support them is not able to take those risks. And a vast amount of wealth is generated by taking risks at a young age.

What huge risks are you talking about? And at upper middle class levels you don't have the kind of money it takes to start a business without realizing the risks you're taking.

Millionaires aren't rich anymore; You need tens, or more likely hundreds of millions to be rich. But they're certainly wealthy enough to make things vastly easier for their children than parents living paycheck to paycheck ever could.

I think your definition of "rich" is not in line with what most people think. A threshold of "hundreds of millions" is less than 1 in 10,000 in the US.

Also, the data I'm looking at for those with $30M+ says 65% are self-made.

Americans love the phrase "middle class". But it's used in a way so broad as to be completely meaningless. It encompasses everyone from the guy who has an 80% mortgage on the cheapest house he could find, through to the people who are your 'millionaires next door'.

I'm pretty sure there are millionaires on this ordinary middle class street--most of us are near retirement age.

Every American I have ever met believes wholeheartedly that whatever his or her own level of wealth is, defines the 'middle class', and is a level of wealth available to all, if only they put in some effort and make a few sacrifices. This is, of course, utter horseshit in the vast majority of cases.

I disagree. I have known people that consider themselves upper class.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm an entrepreneur. I've worked with other entrepreneurs for most of my life. I've always found that business owners with nothing to lose fight and figure out a way to make it. But the entrepreneurs with wealth who seem to have a sense of entitlement that seem to fail. If you want to start a company and make it, you have to have a great sense of grit and willingness to work incredible hours to figure things out. People born with wealth don't inherit this grit all the time.

Yup. The guys who make it generally come from upper middle class backgrounds. Those from upper class backgrounds all too often turn out like the turd recently squeezed out of Washington.

 

[Rhea]

You're supporting what we are saying!

If you think that, you missed point entirely.

You claimed that two generations out proved it was genetics, not the generational wealth of the elite.
I showed you how the generational wealth of the elite lies [not only[/i] in their bank accounts, but in the behaviors they learned as elites. Demonstrating that generational poverty is not just a matter of bad people, but also a legacy that inequality leaves - because the opportunities are NOT the same.

 

[Trausti]

You're supporting what we are saying!

If you think that, you missed point entirely.

You claimed that two generations out proved it was genetics, not the generational wealth of the elite.
I showed you how the generational wealth of the elite lies [not only[/i] in their bank accounts, but in the behaviors they learned as elites. Demonstrating that generational poverty is not just a matter of bad people, but also a legacy that inequality leaves - because the opportunities are NOT the same.

Where do you think behavior comes from? Everyone is okay with acknowledging that children inherit physical traits from their parents. But cognitive and behavioral traits? No way. What, ya saying humans are animals?

 

[Trausti]

Hell, even political orientation is heritable.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-experimental-political-science/article/abs/genes-ideology-and-sophistication/91C7C343BBA8801732F62E7D55B16676

 

[Trausti]

http://faculty.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/ClarkGlasgow2021.pdf

 

[bilby]

What huge risks are you talking about? And at upper middle class levels you don't have the kind of money it takes to start a business without realizing the risks you're taking.

But you do have the support to make those risks acceptable. People say "OMG if I fail I might have to see whether my parents will let me move back in", never realising that that 'worst case disaster' is a MASSIVE luxury to huge numbers of people, whose situation is "if I fail I will be homeless and starving".

I think your definition of "rich" is not in line with what most people think. A threshold of "hundreds of millions" is less than 1 in 10,000 in the US.

It's also an order of magnitude more than my stated threshold, so chalk that up to poor reading comprehension v

Also, the data I'm looking at for those with $30M+ says 65% are self-made.

Self made is horseshit. NOBODY is 'self made'.

Americans love the phrase "middle class". But it's used in a way so broad as to be completely meaningless. It encompasses everyone from the guy who has an 80% mortgage on the cheapest house he could find, through to the people who are your 'millionaires next door'.

I'm pretty sure there are millionaires on this ordinary middle class street--most of us are near retirement age.

Exactly my point. A million dollars isn't riches. Inflation has seen to that. But "millionaire" is synonymous with "rich" in casual language, as a hangover from sixty years ago, when it was vast wealth.

Every American I have ever met believes wholeheartedly that whatever his or her own level of wealth is, defines the 'middle class', and is a level of wealth available to all, if only they put in some effort and make a few sacrifices. This is, of course, utter horseshit in the vast majority of cases.

I disagree. I have known people that consider themselves upper class.

I am prepared to bet that A) it's not many, and B) you know VASTLY more Americans than I do, so those rare cases are very likely to be known to you. More importantly, your quibble is undermined by my last six words: "in the vast majority of cases". Finding a handful of counter examples takes nothing from my position. So stick your nitpick, or demonstrate that it's untrue of the majority, not just one or two people you have encountered.

 

[Swammerdami]

I admit that usages of the words 'rich' and 'wealthy' confuse me! I treat them as synonyms. But in some discussions, 'wealthy' is wealthier than 'rich'; and one of the posts above seemed to treat 'rich' as richer than 'wealthy'!

At least this isn't as bad as British speech where 'stupid money' seems to mean EITHER a ridiculously small amount of money OR a ridiculously large amount of money, depending on context!

 

[TV and credit cards]

What huge risks are you talking about? And at upper middle class levels you don't have the kind of money it takes to start a business without realizing the risks you're taking.

Risk of deciding whether or not to go up against a new competitor in your market, especially one you suspect to be well funded or to cash out and move on. If failure means that the thirty year old with spouse and young child making this decision ends up in a crappy little apartment on the poor side of town or living in mom and dad's 4500 sq ft home on the nice side of town, this is going to affect their decision-making process.

What business? Not every business is a storefront with inventory or offices that need to be outfitted, businesses with large initial investments. Plenty of businesses can be started with little money and maintained at home and a pole barn. Most of the trades can.

Also, the data I'm looking at for those with $30M+ says 65% are self-made.

I'd like to see that. How they define self-made, if it's defined at all.

I disagree. I have known people that consider themselves upper class.

Kind of flies in the face of what you've learned from "The Millionaire Next Door", doesn't it? The theme of the book is that these people are unrecognizable in society. People who talk about their wealth, look wealthy are usually putting on a false front, the veneer of wealth. Generally, I would define those who "consider themselves upper class" as "in debt up to their eyeballs".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're supporting what we are saying!

If you think that, you missed point entirely.

You claimed that two generations out proved it was genetics, not the generational wealth of the elite.
I showed you how the generational wealth of the elite lies [not only[/i] in their bank accounts, but in the behaviors they learned as elites. Demonstrating that generational poverty is not just a matter of bad people, but also a legacy that inequality leaves - because the opportunities are NOT the same.

I didn't claim it was genetics, I claimed it wasn't simply inheritance.

And consider what you're saying--you just showed that success can be passed down independent of money. Shouldn't it be obvious that the opposite is also true--that failure can be passed down independent of money?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://faculty.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/ClarkGlasgow2021.pdf

And why wouldn't you expect a high tendency for people to marry others with similar traits??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But you do have the support to make those risks acceptable. People say "OMG if I fail I might have to see whether my parents will let me move back in", never realising that that 'worst case disaster' is a MASSIVE luxury to huge numbers of people, whose situation is "if I fail I will be homeless and starving".

If they fail they get an ordinary job. Someone with the drive to be able to reasonably start their own business is unlikely to not be able to find a job in normal conditions--and you don't start a business when things are going to shit.

Also, the data I'm looking at for those with $30M+ says 65% are self-made.

Self made is horseshit. NOBODY is 'self made'.

Self made as in they made their own money, they didn't inherit it.

Exactly my point. A million dollars isn't riches. Inflation has seen to that. But "millionaire" is synonymous with "rich" in casual language, as a hangover from sixty years ago, when it was vast wealth.

You still seem to persist in thinking there's some magic line. I know someone worth something in the ballpark of $50 million--and long ago when we were house hunting we actually considered buying the house he's now living in. It's nothing spectacular. We rejected it on location, not on price.

I am prepared to bet that A) it's not many, and B) you know VASTLY more Americans than I do, so those rare cases are very likely to be known to you. More importantly, your quibble is undermined by my last six words: "in the vast majority of cases". Finding a handful of counter examples takes nothing from my position. So stick your nitpick, or demonstrate that it's untrue of the majority, not just one or two people you have encountered.

I meant known personally, not merely known to me.

 

[Bomb#20]

If a company is unable to meet its running costs, stock, upkeep, etc, it probably shouldn't be in business. Workers shouldn't be expected to subsidize a non profitable company by working for sub standard wages.

"Subsidize" does not mean "Sell one's labor for wages DBT declares substandard." The ever-popular claim that low wages are a subsidy to the buyer is propaganda without logical justification.

It's not what I say is substandard. The cost of living index determines that. According to reports, some workers need two or more jobs to make ends meet, working far more than 38-40 hours per week.

That, in one of the richest nations on Earth, is substandard....ethically, morally and economically.

Sorry, not seeing where you derived what the -standard is that their wages are sub-. You appear to be declaring such wages substandard based on your own ethics, morals and economic ideology. Moreover, different workers have different needs -- some workers can't make ends meet on one job because they have lots of dependents, or medical conditions, or aren't willing to move to places where it's easier to make a living, or whatever; so the existence of workers who need two jobs is inevitable no matter what's "standard".

But that isn't even the main point. So let's suppose for the sake of discussion that a wage a typical worker can't make ends meet with is "substandard". How do you get from that to the conclusion that his wage is a subsidy to the buyer? You appear to be taking for granted that his labor is automatically worth at least a "standard" wage, without introducing into evidence any information about what his work accomplishes for the buyer or how good a job he does. Where's the logic in that?

 

[Bomb#20]

If a company behaved like a labor union it would be called price fixing and they would be punished and forced to stop doing it.

Companies behave like labor unions all the time without it being price fixing and without being forced to stop doing it. ... My father spent most of his career in a union that only represented employees of one employer.)

Even without the UAW-type situation it's all the employees.

Yes; and their representative is sitting across the table from the representative of all the shareholders. The company can't negotiate more labor for less concessions by cutting a separate deal with some of the union members; likewise, the union can't negotiate more capital for less concessions by cutting a separate deal with some of the shareholders. What's the difference? The situation is symmetrical.

 

[Rhea]

Sorry, not seeing where you derived what the -standard is that their wages are sub-. You appear to be declaring such wages substandard based on your own ethics, morals and economic ideology. Moreover, different workers have different needs -- some workers can't make ends meet on one job because they have lots of dependents, or medical conditions, or aren't willing to move to places where it's easier to make a living, or whatever; so the existence of workers who need two jobs is inevitable no matter what's "standard".

But that isn't even the main point.

No. That *is* the point.

They exist. People who work hard, do not have lots of kids or medical bills, and cannot make ends meet.
For whatever moral position you take whether that is right or wrong, however you see it,

**** what do you expect your society to do with them? ****

You seem to be saying that the single person who does not have high skills and works minimum wage does not deserve more.
I am not disputing with you on that. I will stipulate it. They do not deserve more.

Now. This is the question of the thread.
What do you do with them?


Do you not think about them because it is their own fault that they are where they are? And whatever happens to them (homelessness, starvation, etc) is not something you talk about or think about?


THAT is the main point. THAT is the question of this thread.
From whatever you ideological viewpoint is, what do you think should happen to these people?

So let's suppose for the sake of discussion that a wage a typical worker can't make ends meet with is "substandard". How do you get from that to the conclusion that his wage is a subsidy to the buyer?

Don’t care, for the sake of this thread. You’re not to make him change his mind on what he think society should do, he said, “pay them more.”

Now,

What do YOU think society should do?
IF they can’t make enough to survive, and
IF you think that is not the employers problem and no higher wage should be paid,
THEN what do you think should be the way their lives play out?


That is the question. We get that you don’t agree with his answer. What’s your answer to the topic of the thread?
How do you see the lives of the little people play out in your vision of society?


Some people have said they should be paid more - that’s what society should do.
Some people say there should be a UBI - that’s what society should do.
Some people say they should go get a better job, even though the OP has bounded the discussion with the state that these are poeple not capable of just going to trade school or college. So that’s a dodge, I guess.

What do YOU think society should do about people who cannot make ends meet because their wage is too low to do so?

 

[Bomb#20]

Wat a strange reading of my OP.
Well, the question was not for my political opponents. It was for everyone.

Uh huh.

...So what you we propose that we DO with all of these people?

Do we want them to just die from starvation after their job are automated?
Do we want to empty out the rural states and force all of the people there to move to squalid tenements near a factory in a high cost dense population?
Do we want people who aren't smart enough to become engineers and doctors to just die of preventable diseases because they can't afford health care or a safe house?

I think about all these people who are against progressive taxation or universal income or raised minimum wages, and I wonder
(a) what is it you think will happen to all of these people? You think they'll suddenly become suitable for college? or
(b) are you actually okay if they all just die?
(c) what are justifiable reasons to allow someone to live (or be raised in) abject poverty?
(d) if we don't think that, what should we DO to plan for them to continue living without abject poverty?
(e) other? What else? What do you think should happen to them?

Yeah, sure, you were equally directing that to your political allies.

I am glad you are willing to engage. I am interested in your answer.

Do tell.

What is your answer?

If you're starting a thread because you really are interested in other people's answers, you might want to consider reading them.

Post #32:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-little-people&p=879122&viewfull=1#post879122

Post #91:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-little-people&p=880815&viewfull=1#post880815

The people who a minimum wage sacrifices in the lower right yellow triangle are the littlest people on the chart: the people with the least wealth and the least prospect of getting an income. So the question for anyone who wants to increase the minimum wage is: What do you want to do with the little people?

It’s a question for those who don’t want to raise the minumum wage, also.

Um, they evidently want to let those people keep their jobs.

What does your ideology do with all those people?

What ideology would that be? Ideology is to ideas as Scientology is to science.

But if you want to know what I would do with them, keep up with your thread.

What I really am interested to hear, is what should society do with the people who are in this minumum wage - the current one that doesn’t pay a living. And futher - what should society do with those who can’t even seem to earn that?

Say you’re right, bomb20 and there’s no value about $10/hr.

I didn't say there was no value above $10/hr. I argued that for some of them there's no marginal revenue above $10/hr. You don't appear to be the sort to assume value equals marginal revenue, quite the reverse; (and I suspect you haven't taken enough economics to know what marginal revenue is.) So you appear to be assuming that I must have meant "value". I didn't. Value is not an observable. Claims about what their labor's value is are ideological.

Since those people can’t live on that amount, what do you want to do with them?

See above. Way, way above.

ETA:

**** what do you expect your society to do with them? ****

What do you do with them?

Do you not think about them because it is their own fault that they are where they are? And whatever happens to them (homelessness, starvation, etc) is not something you talk about or think about?

From whatever you ideological viewpoint is, what do you think should happen to these people?

What do YOU think society should do?

what do you think should be the way their lives play out?

How do you see the lives of the little people play out in your vision of society?

What do YOU think society should do about people who cannot make ends meet because their wage is too low to do so?

No matter how many times you re-ask the same question, you will never retroactively cause me not to have answered. If you put half the effort into reading your own thread that you put into falsely painting me as evading your questions, you'd have saved yourself some embarrassment.

 

[Bomb#20]

But that isn't even the main point.

No. That *is* the point.

You're butting in to a discussion between DBT and myself; it's not up to you to define what the point of our discussion is. He made claims; I get to challenge them even if you as OP-author happen not to care.

You seem to be saying that the single person who does not have high skills and works minimum wage does not deserve more.

No, I don't seem to be saying that. I said nothing at all on the topic of what such a person deserves. Your reading comprehension is blinkered by your ideology.

So let's suppose for the sake of discussion that a wage a typical worker can't make ends meet with is "substandard". How do you get from that to the conclusion that his wage is a subsidy to the buyer?

Don’t care, for the sake of this thread.

Then don't butt in. And if it offends you so much to have people talking about "subsidy" in your thread, the time to complain was when DBT made his claim, not when I pointed out he didn't back it up.

 

[Rhea]

What is your answer?

If you're starting a thread because you really are interested in other people's answers, you might want to consider reading them.

Post #32:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-little-people&p=879122&viewfull=1#post879122

Post #91:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-little-people&p=880815&viewfull=1#post880815

Thanks for the links. It’s true, I did not memorize who had responded before and who had not.
I do appreciate those additions to the discussion. It is interesting to hear the viewpoints of others.
I think we agree in many areas, though some might balk at the complexities of differng repsonses for individual cases. But I think i pays off in the end. And rehap should be covered.



Yes, I understand marginal revenue, thanks.

 

[Bomb#20]

The most consequential inheritance to the child is the parents' genes and behaviors. Saying it's just material wealth passed down is cargo-cult thinking.

[two links to studies of grandchildren of elites]

What Trausti’s and Loren’s arguments and evidence fail to prove is that it had anything to do with genes.

You are carelessly conflating Loren and Trausti. Trausti claimed it had to do with genes; Loren didn't.

 

[Trausti]

The most consequential inheritance to the child is the parents' genes and behaviors. Saying it's just material wealth passed down is cargo-cult thinking.

[two links to studies of grandchildren of elites]

What Trausti’s and Loren’s arguments and evidence fail to prove is that it had anything to do with genes.

You are carelessly conflating Loren and Trausti. Trausti claimed it had to do with genes; Loren didn't.

Yes. That's Trausti's position. All traits are heritable, they do not fall from the sky. I take the radical view that children inherit traits from their parents; that evolution and natural selection and assortative mating are very good explanations for why humans act as they do. The blank slate is bullshit. I'm a heretic. Set me alight.