Current Events > C/D: Most poor people in Western countries are poor bc they're bad with money.

(+) Yeah! (+)

idk about most but defintely a LOT

The average car loan is around $500 per month. Not including insurance and gas. Apple is making tremendous amounts of money off of its overpriced gadgets.

Huge C. The vast majority of people are spending everything they earn because they want to, not because they need to.
---

Most poor people are poor because the nature of capitalism requires for someone to literally steal the fruits of your labor. Also because we exist in an economic cycle that is unsustainable and mutually exclusive with smart consumerism
---

josifrees posted...

the nature of capitalism requires for someone to literally steal the fruits of your labor

LMFAO
---

You can't stop the thought at that point though

Why are they bad with money?

Do you know what happens when the last three generations of your family A) didn't have money, B) didn't know how to handle that money, and C) didn't have any leftover to help you

Does having a father in the household make managing money easier?
If you're in a low-income area, are you even making enough to save up?
---

D- they are poor because they were born poor and raised to be idiots that don't know shit.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

josifrees posted...

the nature of capitalism requires for someone to literally steal the fruits of your labor

LMFAO

You sure showed him!
---

Most people are bad with money, even those with relatively good salaries. They just have a little bit more cushion.
---

josifrees posted...

Most poor people are poor because the nature of capitalism requires for someone to literally steal the fruits of your labor. Also because we exist in an economic cycle that is unsustainable and mutually exclusive with smart consumerism

lmao are you an averagejoel alt account?

capitalism is not about stealing the fruits about labor. it is about free markets and market wages. this is very basic stuff.

the irony is that the far left's attempts to guarantee the same standard of living for everyone are the unsustainable variant. whereas capitalism has reduced poverty from 1/3rd of the planet to 1/10th of the planet over mere decades.
---

JustMonika posted...

Vindris_SNH posted...

josifrees posted...

the nature of capitalism requires for someone to literally steal the fruits of your labor

LMFAO

You sure showed him!

hahahhahahahahahahahaha
---

JustMonika posted...

Vindris_SNH posted...

josifrees posted...

the nature of capitalism requires for someone to literally steal the fruits of your labor

LMFAO

You sure showed him!

what is your main account
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

josifrees posted...

Most poor people are poor because the nature of capitalism requires for someone to literally steal the fruits of your labor. Also because we exist in an economic cycle that is unsustainable and mutually exclusive with smart consumerism

lmao are you an averagejoel alt account?

capitalism is not about stealing the fruits about labor. it is about free markets and market wages. this is very basic stuff.

the irony is that the far left's attempts to guarantee the same standard of living for everyone are the unsustainable variant. whereas capitalism has reduced poverty from 1/3rd of the planet to 1/10th of the planet over mere decades.

Development cures poverty. You are conflating capitalism with development.

None of your post has anything to do with the fundamental nature of paying someone a percentage of the value of their work

Also free markets is a buzzword and is not grounded in reality
---

josifrees posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

josifrees posted...

Most poor people are poor because the nature of capitalism requires for someone to literally steal the fruits of your labor. Also because we exist in an economic cycle that is unsustainable and mutually exclusive with smart consumerism

lmao are you an averagejoel alt account?

capitalism is not about stealing the fruits about labor. it is about free markets and market wages. this is very basic stuff.

the irony is that the far left's attempts to guarantee the same standard of living for everyone are the unsustainable variant. whereas capitalism has reduced poverty from 1/3rd of the planet to 1/10th of the planet over mere decades.

Development cures poverty. You are conflating capitalism with development.

None of your post has anything to do with the fundamental nature of paying someone a percentage of the value of their work

Capitalism is demonstrably the greatest driving force for development. There is nothing better at driving innovation and prosperity for the greatest number of individuals.

People are paid the wage that they agree upon, with respect to their skills and the market. I make my employer more money than I get paid which is why I get paid in the first place - if my employer didn't benefit from having me there, why have me there at all?

Profiting off of employees is not theft. It's fair.
---

I really wonder what the detractors of capitalism think is a plausible definition of it is. Because the people that say stuff like "steal the fruits of your labor" literally advocate for a system based on stealing other's work and property, ie communism and socialism.
---

I dunno, I guess that it is true that poor people are bad with money, but I'm not sure I agree that is why they are poor. In my experience the causation is just as likely to run in the other direction.
---

C
---

um most middle and upper crust Americans are also frequently comically bad with money.
---

Balrog0 posted...

but I'm not sure I agree that is why they are poor.

Obviously no matter how you budget, $8/h isn't pulling you out of the slums.
Poverty comes from bad luck (born into it, accidents, etc), ignorance, and poor decisions.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

People are paid the wage that they agree upon, with respect to their skills and the market. I make my employer more money than I get paid which is why I get paid in the first place - if my employer didn't benefit from having me there, why have me there at all?

i think this is more of a white collar thing thouhgh. employers/employees are not always able to agree upon wages, especially when you're in a position where you dont have a ton of job options for whatever work you do (i.e. stevedores or something like that). that's why there are unions
---

Romulox28 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

People are paid the wage that they agree upon, with respect to their skills and the market. I make my employer more money than I get paid which is why I get paid in the first place - if my employer didn't benefit from having me there, why have me there at all?

i think this is more of a white collar thing thouhgh. employers/employees are not always able to agree upon wages, especially when you're in a position where you dont have a ton of job options for whatever work you do (i.e. stevedores or something like that). that's why there are unions

Think of it like signing a consent form.

"Here's what I'll pay you, do you want the job or not?"

No, a desire for a better life for oneself and their family is the greatest driver of development. Because there is only one accepted system for gaining a better life does not make it the best system for everyone by necessity.

No, people are paid the wage they are forced to accept because how can they feed their families without income. Yes, you have the freedom to not take the job the same way you also have the freedom to die penniless in a ditch.

Profiting off of someone else is by its definition not fair. It is accepted. You can say that you feel it is acceptable. You cannot make a reasonable argument as to it being fair.
---

josifrees posted...

Profiting off of someone else is by its definition not fair.

What's unfair about it?

I don't know about most, but there certainly are a lot of people like that. I used to volunteer at a food bank and would see people who can't feed their families with brand new suv's and other luxuries.
---

C i suppose.

Been saving up most of my money in the past few months and for the first time in my life, I feel secure with my finances. Before, I used to always spend it on the latest toys and gadgets. Now because I'm trying to plan ahead, I've been taking some responsibility with my paychecks. It's not much, but it's the most amount of cash I've at one time.

However, the itch to spend it all on something big lingers around...

Also, according to an article on Time:
Half of Americans Cant Raise $2K in 30 Days
A quarter wouldn't be able to come up with $2,000 at all, and another 19% would have to pawn or sell some of their possessions to do so.
---

yoloyoloswagEMP posted...

Romulox28 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

People are paid the wage that they agree upon, with respect to their skills and the market. I make my employer more money than I get paid which is why I get paid in the first place - if my employer didn't benefit from having me there, why have me there at all?

i think this is more of a white collar thing thouhgh. employers/employees are not always able to agree upon wages, especially when you're in a position where you dont have a ton of job options for whatever work you do (i.e. stevedores or something like that). that's why there are unions

Think of it like signing a consent form.

"Here's what I'll pay you, do you want the job or not?"

yea but say you're a dockworker or something, like i mentioned before. your employer offers you a garbage salary, and if you say no, what are you going to do? work at another seaport? in this case your best bet is to band together with all your coworkers in a union and say if they wont give you what you feel is fair, then you will all refuse to work

josifrees posted...

Profiting off of someone else is by its definition not fair. It is accepted. You can say that you feel it is acceptable. You cannot make a reasonable argument as to it being fair.

i think it is the nature of the beast though, you need to have money to put back into the company to have it grow, to put aside for investments, etc. that being said i think a lot of times this ends up just evolving into shit like bonuses for execs while the workers dont get a taste
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

I really wonder what the detractors of capitalism think is a plausible definition of it is. Because the people that say stuff like "steal the fruits of your labor" literally advocate for a system based on stealing other's work and property, ie communism and socialism.

Here we have a synthesis of capitalism and socialism in generic terms but operating in opposite directions. In capitalism the literal advocacy is in stealing peoples perceived work and property and consolidating it. In communism the literal advocacy is in stealing peoples perceived work and property and deconsolidating it.
---

yoloyoloswagEMP posted...

josifrees posted...

Profiting off of someone else is by its definition not fair.

What's unfair about it?

Whats fair about it?
---

Romulox28 posted...

yoloyoloswagEMP posted...

Romulox28 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

People are paid the wage that they agree upon, with respect to their skills and the market. I make my employer more money than I get paid which is why I get paid in the first place - if my employer didn't benefit from having me there, why have me there at all?

i think this is more of a white collar thing thouhgh. employers/employees are not always able to agree upon wages, especially when you're in a position where you dont have a ton of job options for whatever work you do (i.e. stevedores or something like that). that's why there are unions

Think of it like signing a consent form.

"Here's what I'll pay you, do you want the job or not?"

yea but say you're a dockworker or something, like i mentioned before. your employer offers you a garbage salary, and if you say no, what are you going to do? work at another seaport? in this case your best bet is to band together with all your coworkers in a union and say if they wont give you what you feel is fair, then you will all refuse to work

Tough shit.

That's fair. Not everyone gets to win.

If you're unhappy with being a wageslave, start a business.

josifrees posted...

Whats fair about it?

the capitalist had to assemble the land and factors of production which your labor goes into to turn raw materials into a valuable product

it cost him resources to do initially and he continues to bear the risk and upkeep associated with that ownership
---

Equal effort doesn't mean equal reward in our society, so how you can chalk it all up to personal responsibility is beyond me.
---

Balrog0 posted...

josifrees posted...

Whats fair about it?

the capitalist had to assemble the land and factors of production which your labor goes into to turn raw materials into a valuable product

it cost him resources to do initially and he continues to bear the risk and upkeep associated with that ownership

Hmmmm you make it seem like the capitalist gets the short end of the stick. Doesnt sound very fair to me for them to bear all the risk but only part of the reward!! Maybe they should also get all the reward. That sounds fair
---

yoloyoloswagEMP posted...

Romulox28 posted...

yoloyoloswagEMP posted...

Romulox28 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

People are paid the wage that they agree upon, with respect to their skills and the market. I make my employer more money than I get paid which is why I get paid in the first place - if my employer didn't benefit from having me there, why have me there at all?

i think this is more of a white collar thing thouhgh. employers/employees are not always able to agree upon wages, especially when you're in a position where you dont have a ton of job options for whatever work you do (i.e. stevedores or something like that). that's why there are unions

Think of it like signing a consent form.

"Here's what I'll pay you, do you want the job or not?"

yea but say you're a dockworker or something, like i mentioned before. your employer offers you a garbage salary, and if you say no, what are you going to do? work at another seaport? in this case your best bet is to band together with all your coworkers in a union and say if they wont give you what you feel is fair, then you will all refuse to work

Tough shit.

That's fair. Not everyone gets to win.

If you're unhappy with being a wageslave, start a business.

good idea, i'll tell all these guys to just start their own seaports
---

Romulox28 posted...

yoloyoloswagEMP posted...

Romulox28 posted...

yoloyoloswagEMP posted...

Romulox28 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

People are paid the wage that they agree upon, with respect to their skills and the market. I make my employer more money than I get paid which is why I get paid in the first place - if my employer didn't benefit from having me there, why have me there at all?

i think this is more of a white collar thing thouhgh. employers/employees are not always able to agree upon wages, especially when you're in a position where you dont have a ton of job options for whatever work you do (i.e. stevedores or something like that). that's why there are unions

Think of it like signing a consent form.

"Here's what I'll pay you, do you want the job or not?"

yea but say you're a dockworker or something, like i mentioned before. your employer offers you a garbage salary, and if you say no, what are you going to do? work at another seaport? in this case your best bet is to band together with all your coworkers in a union and say if they wont give you what you feel is fair, then you will all refuse to work

Tough shit.

That's fair. Not everyone gets to win.

If you're unhappy with being a wageslave, start a business.

good idea, i'll tell all these guys to just start their own seaports

It's 100% their fault they don't earn more money.

We're in the absolute best age of human history to be an entrepreneur.

josifrees posted...

Hmmmm you make it seem like the capitalist gets the short end of the stick. Doesnt sound very fair to me for them to bear all the risk but only part of the reward!!

That's kind of odd, I would think that most people who see that Capitalist Carl has Thing A and Larry the Laborer has Thing B, and when you combine the two things, you get Something U Sell, Carl and Larry both deserve some of what is earned!
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

if my employer didn't benefit from having me there, why have me there at all?

This is important.
Proud must have started reading Sowell, or at least watched a few videos.

SerenitySays posted...

Also, according to an article on Time:
Half of Americans cant raise $2K in 30 days. A quarter wouldn't be able to come up with $2,000 at all, and another 19% would have to pawn or sell some of their possessions to do so.

Something doesn't seem right here. Unless it's badly misquoted, this seems like obfuscation and confusion.

Here's how I'm assuming it's parsed:
25% - no way to raise $2K, at all.
19% - give me at least a month to sell some stuff.
6% - give me at least a month to save it up.
50% - let me write you a check right now, or would you rather have cash?

josifrees posted...

Hmmmm you make it seem like the capitalist gets the short end of the stick. Doesnt sound very fair to me for them to bear all the risk but only part of the reward!! Maybe they should also get all the reward. That sounds fair

Your mocking and derision is ridiculous, it's not like capitalists are arguing that workers should get nothing. You are so dishonest and disingenuous in your posts and arguments.
Commies are the fucking worst.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

50% - let me write you a check right now, or would you rather have cash?

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/12/pf/americans-lack-of-savings/index.html

Last year, only 37% of Americans reported having enough savings to cover an expense of $500 or more.
---

Balrog0 posted...

josifrees posted...

Hmmmm you make it seem like the capitalist gets the short end of the stick. Doesnt sound very fair to me for them to bear all the risk but only part of the reward!!

That's kind of odd, I would think that most people who see that Capitalist Carl has Thing A and Larry the Laborer has Thing B, and when you combine the two things, you get Something U Sell, Carl and Larry both deserve some of what is earned!

In a perfect world yes. But like you said, Carl takes all the risk. It should be irrational for him to not take all the reward. The only thing that is keeping him from all the reward and rolling labor into upkeep is the abolition of slavery
---

Romulox28 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

50% - let me write you a check right now, or would you rather have cash?

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/12/pf/americans-lack-of-savings/index.html

Last year, only 37% of Americans reported having enough savings to cover an expense of $500 or more.

So... that means roughly 13% can write a check now, with that 37% apparently being able to do it in a month.
Or not, since Times is going with $2000, CNN assumes $500...

https://www.daveramsey.com/baby-steps/1

Romulox28 posted...

josifrees posted...

Profiting off of someone else is by its definition not fair. It is accepted. You can say that you feel it is acceptable. You cannot make a reasonable argument as to it being fair.

i think it is the nature of the beast though, you need to have money to put back into the company to have it grow, to put aside for investments, etc. that being said i think a lot of times this ends up just evolving into shit like bonuses for execs while the workers dont get a taste

I agree which is why I believe worker owned businesses are really the best of both worlds
---

josifrees posted...

In a perfect world yes. But like you said, Carl takes all the risk. It should be irrational for him to not take all the reward. The only thing that is keeping him from all the reward and rolling labor into upkeep is the abolition of slavery

they did abolish slavery so doesn't that mean it is currently fair as it is?
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

josifrees posted...

Hmmmm you make it seem like the capitalist gets the short end of the stick. Doesnt sound very fair to me for them to bear all the risk but only part of the reward!! Maybe they should also get all the reward. That sounds fair

Your mocking and derision is ridiculous, it's not like capitalists are arguing that workers should get nothing. You are so dishonest and disingenuous in your posts and arguments.
Commies are the fucking worst.

You arent a good capitalist if you arent arguing for such. Fake capitalists and what passes for a commie today are equally fucking terrible
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

josifrees posted...

Hmmmm you make it seem like the capitalist gets the short end of the stick. Doesnt sound very fair to me for them to bear all the risk but only part of the reward!! Maybe they should also get all the reward. That sounds fair

Your mocking and derision is ridiculous, it's not like capitalists are arguing that workers should get nothing. You are so dishonest and disingenuous in your posts and arguments.
Commies are the fucking worst.

I came in here expecting to get into arguments with the usual blind supporters of capitalism, but it seems josifrees has me covered
---

I think I'm done with this board, man

all it is is jr league communists and trump supporters
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Romulox28 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

50% - let me write you a check right now, or would you rather have cash?

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/12/pf/americans-lack-of-savings/index.html

Last year, only 37% of Americans reported having enough savings to cover an expense of $500 or more.

So... that means roughly 13% can write a check now, with that 37% apparently being able to do it in a month.
Or not, since Times is going with $2000, CNN assumes $500...

https://www.daveramsey.com/baby-steps/1

Here's the link to the Time article.
http://business.time.com/2011/06/01/nearly-half-of-americans-would-struggle-to-come-up-with-2k-in-30-days/
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

I think I'm done with this board, man

all it is is jr league communists and trump supporters

It's pretty bad. I hope you don't leave though.

---

Yes please dont leave, you are one of the best posters here and I always enjoy your topics and posts.
---

SerenitySays posted...

Here's the link to the Time article.
http://business.time.com/2011/06/01/nearly-half-of-americans-would-struggle-to-come-up-with-2k-in-30-days/

Neat, thanks.

This seems to be a strong point:

But a question: How is the fact that people with high enough incomes to save $2,000 choose not to save $2,000 a matter of public policy?