The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Lord of Oats wrote:

He also wrote: And what about all the people out there living hand-to-mouth, who don't even have $50 a month? Do those simply have to be more careful not to get hit by uninsured drunk drivers? Don't tell me they're not out there; I talk to a hundred of them a week.

Guess what. Anyone that is able to work can work more and spend less. You know something? I've been one of these people for a few months. It took me a long time to get a job, and the one I got doesn't even pay my bills (rent, utilities, car payment, car insurance), much less get me anything to eat or gas to make the car get me to work. So I got another job. I still haven't completed training at or been paid by my second job, but when I do get into a regular work rhythm there, I'll start to have money left over. I can piddle this away or I can invest it. I'll probably do a little of both. It doesn't matter. If you're not disabled, your complaints about being poor probably aren't legitimate. I moved to a terrible job market and I have no real skills, and here I am, making it on my own. If I can do this shit, all these other fuckers can do it. I'm not denying that these people are out there, but I am asserting that they just haven't done what it takes to get where they need to be.

I'm happy that you're one of the lucky ones, and can afford to pay for yourself. But the fact is, too many people (some of whom are my friends) can't. The simple math of it is that there are fewer jobs right now than there are people looking for them. Some people, even highly-skilled people, will be left out in the cold. It happens. And, the way I've always seen it, it's one of the government's many duties to throw these people a bone every once in a while. Unemployment, creating jobs, and so on. My first few months out of college, the only jobs I could find were part-time and low-paying, so I couldn't pay the rent. If I had been living alone, I'd have been evicted from my apartment before I actually found a full-time job. I'm one of the lucky ones, too.


Oh, and while I'm at it, pretty much everything jb said.

melvin wrote:

Generic wrote:Hey Melvin. Where are you investing your money that you get a 7% return?

The average return of the S&P 500 in every possible 12-month period between January 1871 and December 2004 was 10.8%.

Thanks.

Do you mind sharing where you got that statistic, and is there any way to plug in a more relevant span of time? I feel like the inclusion of dates from the 19th century weakens your argument, as does the exclusion of the last four years, which haven't been great, economically speaking.

Generic wrote: I'm sorry, Chris, but this makes it sound a lot like you don't think mental illnesses "count." And they do. If she didn't have her clonazepam, she simply wouldn't be able to function. And it's not because she's developed a dependence on the drug; it's simply that her brain doesn't work properly.

1. Come on now, you know damn well I didn't say that mental illness doesn't count. I also live with a chemical imbalance. Some have it much more severe and need more help.

2. Clonazepam absolutely will not cure your friend. In fact, it is a relaxant and makes the brain more dependent.

3. Clonazepam is the second most addictive pharmaceutical drugs on the market and the withdraws are 10 times worse than the original issues.

4. In order to change this medication, a person can't just stop using it, nor be prescribed a new drug and sent on their way. To get off of clonazepam, the patient has to be checked into a 60 to 90 day detox treatment and monitored several times a day. After the detox, they will have to continue a drug treatment for a period of time until the imbalance is physically controllable.

5. Who ever told you that a change in diet and a Psychotherapy isn't available is lying to you. Severe cases will require continued lithium use until completely managed.

6. One of the leading reasons for chemical imbalance in the brain that leads to bi polar disorder and many other treatable imbalances is the lack of omega 3, as well as about 72 other minerals, acids, etc, which is caused "partly" by the change in our north American diet over the past 50 years. It can effect 1 in 3 people to one degree or another.

Lord of Oats knows more about nutrition than I do and I'm not a Doctor. Hoblit was faced with exactly the same situation as I was. A recovering drug user being pushed to get back on drugs by a doctor. But years ago I joined a Psychotherapy group to learn how to live with my problems and it did cure me to the point of being able to function normally on a daily bases. I'll admit that my case was very minimal compared to the rest of the group, but I now know what I need on a personal level. Now the problem is completely managed. It is part of who you are and it is part of what you have to take into consideration in your life, but it's not something that has to dominate your life.

Jon, I hope the best for your friend and I hope she can overcome her illness. I won't get too off topic here anymore, but feel free to PM if you'd like to continue this conversation.

Eh, I made a lot of stupid mistakes, and I'm still...well, about to make it.

I don't at all consider myself lucky.

I consider myself to be frugal, and willing to do undesirable work. That's all.

I just don't buy that there isn't enough work out there to go around. Consumption creates jobs. Work is out there somewhere. If you don't want to grab life by the balls and slap it upside the head, that's not my problem. You and I are not lucky. We're ambitious. We're not going to take no for an answer.

Back to the original deal, $50 a month should not be hard for anyone who's able to work to come up with. That approximately seven hours of work at minimum wage. Seven extra hours of work over the course of an entire month.

Or if you smoke 4 packs of cigarettes a week, at $3 a pack (a low figure), that's $48 a month. Or it could be alcohol. Drugs. Overpriced and/or too much food. Soda. Cable television. Air conditioning. Internet access. Your automobile. Whatever. Nearly everyone wastes money somewhere.

As my middle school gym teacher, Coach Kiesling, used to say, "If it's important to you, you'll do it."

I know that balancing a budget is difficult. You probably want to do more than you have money to do it with. So it simply becomes a matter of priority.

Generic wrote:Do you mind sharing where you got that statistic, and is there any way to plug in a more relevant span of time? I feel like the inclusion of dates from the 19th century weakens your argument, as does the exclusion of the last four years, which haven't been great, economically speaking.

Not all all. Yale Professor Robert J. Shiller maintains a spreadsheet that has tracked the S&P 500 Index (as well as bond, interest rate, and consumption data) every month since January 1871, so you can look at any month, or any collection of months, over any period of time since then, right here.

Unfortunately, his data doesn't extend right up until the current day, but I can tell you that five and 10-year S&P 500 returns ending Dec. 2007 were 5.3% and 7.8% respectively. Of course, recent months have dragged these numbers down. At the same time, smaller cap stocks and some actively-managed investments have significantly outperformed these numbers.

Lord of Oats wrote:If I can do this shit, all these other fuckers can do it.

1. What is the ratio of wage earners to dependents in your household?
2. Did you graduate from high school?
3. Can you speak English?
4. Do you own a car?

On the subject of drug dependencies, BLT forgot to mention a major point. The free market will (and has) produced a situation where long-term (even permanent) solutions involving drug dependencies are favored over short-term solutions involving cures. "Maintenance" drugs are better for business than cures, and it goes well beyond the drug companies.

My wife (Crash) is on a maintenance drug that requires her to see her shrink on regular intervals to check on the dosage, etc. There has never been a change in the last ten years, and yet she still has to pass GO and pay the $200 (figuratively, it's a lot more than that in reality) every six months. As far as I can tell, she will be doing this for the rest of her live. So the maintenance plan is better for the docs, too.

The only ones left with the resources to fund research into a cure (other than the government and government-supported education institutions) are the insurance companies. But for them, it's quicker, easier, and less risky to just raise the rates.

melvin wrote: - Many, if not most, who believe in the American constitution would say that the social contract exists to provide law and order (i.e. the protection of inalienable rights), not to provide everyone with a free house or state-of-the-art healthcare.
.

Melvin - you seem to be thinking only of the cost of treatment when you talk about healthcare. That, as I think Sober alluded to earlier is only a very small and relatively insignificant part of a properly funded health system.

Public health, disease prevention, vaccination programmes, health promotion etc, etc. These are the things that have made societies healthier. And these are the things that for which there is no market incentive for private enterprise to be involved. How do you make a quid out of discouraging people from smoking?

I am reasonably happy that my daughter can go to school without the risk of contracting measles or tuberculosis from the other kids - because my tax money has funded government programmes which have virtually eliminated these diseases. That is not a role that the private sector has ever had any incentive to fill.

And I have actually lived and worked in countries where children do regularly die of preventable diseases such as tuberculosis and diarrhea. I have no problems whatsoever with a significant percentage of my earnings being used to contribute to public health. Or to be used in aid programmes to contribute to public health and infrastructre in neighboring developing nations. I am happy about this because I know that these outcomes actually benefit me personally.

melvin wrote: - America treats its weakest members with a lack of compassion? America has the richest poor people on Earth, and is by far the most charitable nation on Earth. Heck, America even sends charity to people in other nations.

WTF?!? You may need to support that with a reference.

Caravan Ray wrote:WTF?!? You may need to support that with a reference.

Re: charity, these numbers were published by the Spanish government in 2003, but the link no longer works:

COUNTRY................PER CAP. GIVING

Spain..........................122
Belgium........................120
U.K............................117
Netherlands....................110
Ireland........................100
France..........................74
Finland.........................70
Austria.........................50
Germany.........................39
Hungary.........................32
Slovakia........................25
Czech Republic..................25
Romania..........................5

U.S............................278

Give me some time to find better references on this and the idea of poor Americans being relatively rich. I'm leaving town for a few days in mere moments, so I'll return to the lively conversation on Monday.

While I'm at it, I know there's research out there showing that those who identify themselves as Conservatives give more charitably than those who identify themselves as Liberal. In fact, according to their 2007 tax returns, Barack Obama donated 5.8% of his net income to charitable causes, and McCain donated 27.3% of his income to charitable causes.

I think these findings are consistent with the two ideologies: the good of man vs. the good of the state.

melvin wrote:While I'm at it, I know there's research out there showing that those who identify themselves as Conservatives give more charitably than those who identify themselves as Liberal. In fact, according to their 2007 tax returns, Barack Obama donated 5.8% of his net income to charitable causes, and McCain donated 27.3% of his income to charitable causes.

Two things about this. The first is that the percentages should be shown according to their households, not as individuals. I wonder how much of his wife's income is given to charity, as a percentage. I mean, if my wife is worth a hundred million I have much less of a problem donating a lot of my piddly little income.

The second thing is that the giving rate reflects the ideology of the two groups. Liberals expect society to take care of its members, and therefore give less to charity while being completely willing to pay more in taxes, because that method of contribution appeals to them more ideologically. Conversely, conservatives want government to have less responsibility for taking care of people. That doesn't mean, necessarily, that conservatives don't care about people, it's simply a difference of opinion as to the best financial method for doing that for the good of society versus the good of the particular interests you want to help.

Also, it would be valuable to see a breakdown of the charities that conservatives give to. I wonder if a lot of their donating is to their churches, and then let's see what's the diff between a conservative church's charitable outreach and a liberal church. Which kind of church spends money on a) itself and b) its evangelical programs vs community building, feeding the hungry, and helping society.

Simply comparing charitable giving rates is a good way to get a sound bite if you just want to rebut somebody in an unexamined argument, but to really compare this aspect of the differences between us takes just a LITTLE bit more examination. Not a whole lot, but just one or two moments of thought. So let's not be quite as simplistic as the pundits on tv, 'cause then we'll start to really dislike each other. >:(

If you start out an investigation thinking things are one way or another, you're going to do a less-than-thorough job of investigating and you're going to constantly look only for the evidence that supports your way of thinking and stop when you find them. This is kind of the problem the current administration got into with regard to its evidence in support of the war.

Don't be that guy!

JB

melvin wrote:America treats its weakest members with a lack of compassion? America has the richest poor people on Earth, and is by far the most charitable nation on Earth. Heck, America even sends charity to people in other nations.

I have no idea whether America is the most charitable nation on Earth or not, but charity is not the same as donating money to poor people. I can donate money to charities that deal with adopting unwanted greyhounds, or cleaning up highways, or whatever. Just because a nation is charitable does not mean that a nation necessarily cares about its poor people.

Just because people in other countries have poor people who are even poorer than the poor people in the US doesn't mean that the US treats its poor with compassion. Part of compassion is caring. To say, imply, suggest or intimate that just because John Poorman has a better life than some other person in some other country, that that should be good enough for John Poorman... that's just about the most uncaring sentiment I can think of.

erik wrote:

melvin wrote:America treats its weakest members with a lack of compassion? America has the richest poor people on Earth, and is by far the most charitable nation on Earth. Heck, America even sends charity to people in other nations.

I have no idea whether America is the most charitable nation on Earth or not, but charity is not the same as donating money to poor people. I can donate money to charities that deal with adopting unwanted greyhounds, or cleaning up highways, or whatever. Just because a nation is charitable does not mean that a nation necessarily cares about its poor people.

Just because people in other countries have poor people who are even poorer than the poor people in the US doesn't mean that the US treats its poor with compassion. Part of compassion is caring. To say, imply, suggest or intimate that just because John Poorman has a better life than some other person in some other country, that that should be good enough for John Poorman... that's just about the most uncaring sentiment I can think of.

That and charity is also TIME. As the saying goes, time is money and charity can also be present in labor form. Not to say that we don't do that either, but one could argue that just because we throw money at a problem that there aren't other countries donating people. (and their time, skills, etc...)

Donating charitable objects comes up as well. Charity cannot necessarily be summed up in $ amounts.

Lord of Oats wrote: Back to the original deal, $50 a month should not be hard for anyone who's able to work to come up with. That approximately seven hours of work at minimum wage. Seven extra hours of work over the course of an entire month.

[...]

I know that balancing a budget is difficult. You probably want to do more than you have money to do it with. So it simply becomes a matter of priority.

You assume that people who would like to make more money by working more will have the opportunity to do so. Not all jobs offer overtime. My current job, for example, has set hours. You wanna work more? Get another job. Which, as I've already stated (and I stand by it, even though you don't seem to believe me), is easier said than done, because there just plain aren't that many jobs out there.

So let's use your minimum wage example. Let's say you're working 40 hours a week at minimum wage. In my state, minimum wage is currently $6.55/hr. That's $262 per week, approxiamtely $1048 per month. Subtract taxes and you've got, conservatively, $800 at the end of the month.

My friend who lives alone in a one-bedroom apartment pays $615 per month, plus about $150 a month, give or take, on power and utilities. That's $765 a month just to keep a roof over her head and shower at the end of the day. Factor in groceries and gas (not to mention incidental expenses like groceries, fixing the vacuum cleaner, getting your car's oil changed, or the occasional new t-shirt or pair of socks as your clothes fall apart with age, and auto insurance, if you're lucky enough to own a car), and suddenly your outbox is noticeably taller than your inbox.

If you have a job that will let you take more hours to make ends meet, then bully for you. But bear in mind, if you work minimum wage, then so do your co-workers, and odds are there won't be enough extra hours to go around.

If you do happen to have a job that will let you work more and will pay you more for the extra work, then great! But at least have the decency to understand that not everyone has the ability to just make more money by working harder.

melvin wrote:

Caravan Ray wrote:WTF?!? You may need to support that with a reference.

Re: charity, these numbers were published by the Spanish government in 2003, but the link no longer works:

COUNTRY................PER CAP. GIVING

Spain..........................122
Belgium........................120
U.K............................117
Netherlands....................110
Ireland........................100
France..........................74
Finland.........................70
Austria.........................50
Germany.........................39
Hungary.........................32
Slovakia........................25
Czech Republic..................25
Romania..........................5

U.S............................278

Give me some time to find better references on this and the idea of poor Americans being relatively rich. I'm leaving town for a few days in mere moments, so I'll return to the lively conversation on Monday.

While I'm at it, I know there's research out there showing that those who identify themselves as Conservatives give more charitably than those who identify themselves as Liberal. In fact, according to their 2007 tax returns, Barack Obama donated 5.8% of his net income to charitable causes, and McCain donated 27.3% of his income to charitable causes.

I think these findings are consistent with the two ideologies: the good of man vs. the good of the state.

I'm sorry Melvin - I should have been clearer. I was really only questioning the "poorest rich people" comment. You posted a link to an article a few pages ago which also seemed to allude to that - though it seemed to only be basing that on average income in $USD. Monetary income (especially after-tax income) is not a good way to assess relative poverty

According to the UNDP Human Poverty Index which is based on the likelihood of early death, availability of education and overall standard of living - the best the USA can do is 12th. Not bad of course - but not the "poorest rich people".


But Re. the charity thing, since you did address it - just a statistical note, not questioning the ideology - I am guessing those numbers have not been adjusted for relative GDP, which means they are not particularly indicative of anything.

If you want to quantitise generosity, perhaps you should investigate the amount of overseas development aid money given per $ of GDP by developed nations and see where the USA stands on that list (cough..almost last). And then, just for a laugh, see which "developing" nation has historically received the majority of that money (cough, cough....Israel)

Generic wrote:My friend who lives alone in a one-bedroom apartment pays $615 per month, plus about $150 a month, give or take, on power and utilities. That's $765 a month just to keep a roof over her head and shower at the end of the day. Factor in groceries and gas (not to mention incidental expenses like groceries, fixing the vacuum cleaner, getting your car's oil changed, or the occasional new t-shirt or pair of socks as your clothes fall apart with age, and auto insurance, if you're lucky enough to own a car), and suddenly your outbox is noticeably taller than your inbox.

I don't think that example holds up, Generic, because you have to live within your means. If you make $800 a month, you're probably going to need to have roommates. That's just what everyone does the world over. So rather than paying $615 a month for her own one-bedroom, she'll pay $400 for half of a two-bedroom. If you can't afford to own a car, you ride the bus like everyone else. If there's no bus service where you live, you move, ride your bike, get rides. People make it work.

I'm not disputing the problem, but it's only helpful if examples are suited to the argument. :-/

jb wrote:

Generic wrote:My friend who lives alone in a one-bedroom apartment pays $615 per month, plus about $150 a month, give or take, on power and utilities. That's $765 a month just to keep a roof over her head and shower at the end of the day. Factor in groceries and gas (not to mention incidental expenses like groceries, fixing the vacuum cleaner, getting your car's oil changed, or the occasional new t-shirt or pair of socks as your clothes fall apart with age, and auto insurance, if you're lucky enough to own a car), and suddenly your outbox is noticeably taller than your inbox.

I don't think that example holds up, Generic, because you have to live within your means. If you make $800 a month, you're probably going to need to have roommates. That's just what everyone does the world over. So rather than paying $615 a month for her own one-bedroom, she'll pay $400 for half of a two-bedroom. If you can't afford to own a car, you ride the bus like everyone else. If there's no bus service where you live, you move, ride your bike, get rides. People make it work.

I'm not disputing the problem, but it's only helpful if examples are suited to the argument. :-/

That and minimum wage jobs aren't designed to be lived on as the sole means of income. They don't offer minimum wage jobs to skilled workers. Minimum wage jobs are just that, minimum skill for minimum wage. I understand that people can fall into this type of job but its not suitable for this argument because our economy isn't based on that.
(please don't bring up illegal immigrants here, its not relevant to this discussion and even if it is, it is its own can of worms)

If you find that you can't sell yourself to a job that pays over minimum wage, you will have to make due as JB suggested.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/makedue.html

This educational link brought to you by Spud.

Hoblit wrote: That and minimum wage jobs aren't designed to be lived on as the sole means of income. They don't offer minimum wage jobs to skilled workers. Minimum wage jobs are just that, minimum skill for minimum wage. I understand that people can fall into this type of job but its not suitable for this argument because our economy isn't based on that.

They're not designed to be lived on as the sole means of income, but it happens. I've got a B.A., but the only jobs I've been able to find since graduation have been for minimum wage.

Hey, look. This started as a discussion of health-care and taxes with regards to the upcoming presidential election, and I'm finding myself spending way too much time just trying to convince some people here that poor people exist. So, if we're not going to find any common ground, I'll just stop posting to this thread.

Generic wrote:

Hoblit wrote: That and minimum wage jobs aren't designed to be lived on as the sole means of income. They don't offer minimum wage jobs to skilled workers. Minimum wage jobs are just that, minimum skill for minimum wage. I understand that people can fall into this type of job but its not suitable for this argument because our economy isn't based on that.

1. They're not designed to be lived on as the sole means of income, but it happens. I've got a B.A., but the only jobs I've been able to find since graduation have been for minimum wage.

2. Hey, look. This started as a discussion of health-care and taxes with regards to the upcoming presidential election, and I'm finding myself spending way too much time just trying to convince some people here that poor people exist. So, if we're not going to find any common ground, I'll just stop posting to this thread.

1. I know it happens, I even say that in what you quoted above. But this isn't a factor because if you have fallen on a minimum wage job you have to adjust for that and you have to rise above that situation.

2. This discussion started about presidential candidates and has migrated from topic to topic. I don't believe anyone here believes that there aren't any legitimate poor people. I've been there. I had a job (a long time ago) that was only $0.10 above minimum wage and because I didn't have kids I couldn't get any help from the state. I was in a bad situation. I dug myself out of it, that's what had to be done. Funny enough though, my job had health insurance. I think the common ground here is that affordable health insurance subsided by the Federal Government is in fact a form of welfare. We're discussing whether it should be or not. I think you're getting offended by the 'help those who help themselves' suggestions being made. I want affordable health insurance too! I'm not the poorest guy, I make pretty good money and STILL can't afford health insurance.

Spud wrote:http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/makedue.html

This educational link brought to you by Spud.

Spud wrote:As far as I can tell, she will be doing this for the rest of her live.

Spud wrote:http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/makedue.html

This educational link brought to you by Spud.

If I just looked at one of those a day, I'd be better for the journey. I wouldn't be a better person, nor make a better living, not even get more sex, BUT, I'd know how to correctly use the word everyday as opposed to every day.

....now, if you could just link me to a list of proper punctuation so I know when to use commas and apostrophes correctly.

Hoblit wrote:

Spud wrote:As far as I can tell, she will be doing this for the rest of her live.

Good call, Hoblit. How long did it take you to find that?

SPUD