By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - 62 richest people has as much money as poorest 3.5 billion humans

Aeolus451 on 20 January 2016
MTZehvor said:
Aeolus451 said:
MTZehvor said:
Aeolus451 said:

If you call working 8 to 12 hours a day "overworking" then no wonder why we have such a difference stance on this. In general, people are having kids too young when they should be focusing on careers or schooling. The idea behind working in a dead end job or part time job (if you have to) that you're supposed to just pay the bills while going to school or do online classes or learn about how to run a small business to eventually start your own. If someone is just working a shit job and not doing anything to better their position in life then they are to blame for remaining where they are. You're not supposed to keep working at mcdonalds for the rest of your life. 

In truth, I don't have any sympathy for grown adults that are poor but haven't done much to get out of it. If they are government aid, they should be forced to take long term birth control regardless of what gender they are. Government aid in general sounds great on paper but in reality if it's too good as in it's better to be on it then working and paying your own bills, it gives no incentive for someone to better themselves. It actually keeps people poor versus actually helping them get out of poverity. There should be a ultimate time limit for it. I rather give 'em free college than free food or place to stay.

I do have sympathy for the kids which is why I think at least in the states that any teenagers from poor families wanting to go to college should be able to easily get a low interest student loan thats pays completely for whatever type of college degree they want regardless of their credit rating and provide a place to stay and have food to eat.

I'm all for helping someone that wants to better themselves but not anyone else. The rest can go fuck themselves if all they want is to milk the government tit til it's barren and they have nothing to show for it.

I only called working 12 hours a day overworking, and yes, I do think that's reasonable, especially since doctors refer to it as overworking as well. Working an additional four hours a day increases your chance of heart disease by 125%, increases your likelihood of dying early from any medical cause by 50%, and doubles your chances of depression (citing Gallup here). Assuming these people are working low paying jobs, whatever additional income they earn is likely going to be taken up by the increased medical expenditures.

Government aid in general sounds great on paper but in reality if it's too good as in it's better to be on it then working and paying your own bills, it gives no incentive for someone to better themselves.

This actually is not true. The vast majority (over 90%) of families who are recipients of welfare packages are off welfare in 3 years time (citing the Urban Institute on this one). There is a strong negative stigma which encourages people to get out of welfare dependency as quickly as possible. Over half of people who receive welfare this year will be people who did not receive it last year. In other words, welfare is a constantly changing group; very few people simply "farm the system," as it were.

Do you honestly believe that?  

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Average Time on AFCD (Aid to Families with Dependent Children)
Time on AFDC Percent of Recipients
Less than 7 months 19%
7 to 12 months 15.2%
1 to 2 years 19.3%
2 to 5 years 26.9%
Over 5 years 19.6%

Personally, I know of at least 20 people that have been on welfare for over 5 years or more. 

I'm honestly not sure where to start with this. First off, AFDC was shut down and replaced with TANF in 1996. Your statistics are, at the very least, nearly 20 years old.

Secondly, AFDC was only a portion of welfare programs, designed to help out single mothers. Single mothers, hopefully somewhat obviously, are going to have far less chances to pursue sufficient work to escape poverty (taking care of a child tends to eat into your time). Honestly, the fact that only 20% stayed in this program for more than 5 years is pretty impressive in and of itself.

With that said, even if we do look exclusively at public benefits programs like TANF, the majority are still off within 3 years, using as up to date statistics as are avaliable. 90% are off in five years time.

The 90% number I referenced earlier is admittedly somewhat outdated; no reputable study (that I'm aware of, at least) has been performed on the entire welfare receiving population since the turn of the century. It may not be 90% at this point. With that said, if roughly 90% of public benefits program recipients are off in at least 5 years time (2012 statistics), then I can't imagine the number would be worse for welfare taken as a whole, given most public benefits programs are aimed at people who have either medical probems or some other significant impediment to finding and keeping a job.

And finally, 20 people that you know does not consitute a statistically significant survey size for a country that contains over 300 million individuals.

 

The 5 year thing I'm more willing to accept because of there's a 5 year federal time for TANF but I did found out something interesting about it. Once the 60 month limit is reached they are dropped from it, at that point they can apply for a hardship extension (what entails as hardship is defined by the state). There is no time limit on the extension. The number of families receiving assistance for more than 60 months must not exceed 20 percent of the state's average monthy caseload. 

In other words, on paper or statistically, no one will receive more than 5 years of TANF but in reality they do. In regards, to the site I linked earlier, it was up to date supposedly so i thought that AFDC was a current program but I was mistaken.



Around the Network
fatslob-:O on 20 January 2016
RadiantDanceMachine said:

Not at all, I figured you liked Trump. I'm a big fan of capitalism, but it's disappointing how prohibitively expensive post-secondary education is to the point of keeping the impoverished impoverished. 

I don't know very much about trump but like you I am also a big fan of capitalism too ...

I agree that post-secondary education can be expensive but you don't have to go to flagship institutions or break the bank to be well off ... 



Nem on 20 January 2016
bouzane said:
Nem said:
 

 

The way you mix up social support as "fascism" or an "dictatorship" or even "corporatism" is distasteful at best. You obviously were fed some really weird stories with some big words to make you think it was right.

I will tell you what i tell every right wing defender. The state isnt "alive", people are. When you are willing to let people die for economic growth is when your priorities are in the wrong place.

 

I understand that English isn't your first language but there is no excuse for replying to my post without first understanding it. If you do not understand a term (in this case corporate subsidies) please learn what it means before you discuss it with other people. I am not making any sort of comparison between social security and fascism. My entire post reiterates this fact over and over and somehow you misinterpreted what I said yet again.

I am drawing comparisons between unconditionally handing the peoples' wealth over to private entities to corporatist-fascism because that's exactly what it is. Corporate subsidies are not social security, what is so damn difficult about this concept? I have said nothing against communism, socialism or social security. I am speaking out against corporate subsidies because they reallocate wealth (unfairly I might add) from the lower and middle classes to the extremely wealthy. Your comment about "weird stories with some big words" leads me to believe that you geniunely do not have any grasp of what I am saying so why bother to respond to me at all? Please understand what I am posting before you respond again.

If this was too long or too difficult to follow I'll break it down for you:

1) I am in favor of social security
2) I have never compared social security to fascism
3) I despise the right wing and have done literally nothing to defend it
4) I am neither a supporter of authoritarianism nor statism
5) At no point have I expressed a desire to allow people to die for economic growth

If you do not read and / or understand what I have posted then please stop replying to me. You are not addressing anything I have said but instead some imaginary strawman. You are making up things that I have never said and that is extraordinarily disrespectful. No offense but posts like yours are the reason I despise participating in any actual discussions on this forum. I can handle somebody disagreeing with me, it's this complete lack of comprehension that I can not tolerate.

If your next reply is just more nonsense about positions I have never taken, opinions I have never expressed and more misunderstanding of basic socio-economic concepts then I am just going to ignore it. Put more effort into this discussion or I am finished wasting my time on you.

 

Chillax. It was a language barrier thing like you said. I apologise for the mixup. Thought you were saying something else, and i'm happy that wasnt the case. Very happy to be wrong in this case. :)



MTZehvor on 20 January 2016
Aeolus451 said:
MTZehvor said:
Aeolus451 said:
MTZehvor said:
Aeolus451 said:

If you call working 8 to 12 hours a day "overworking" then no wonder why we have such a difference stance on this. In general, people are having kids too young when they should be focusing on careers or schooling. The idea behind working in a dead end job or part time job (if you have to) that you're supposed to just pay the bills while going to school or do online classes or learn about how to run a small business to eventually start your own. If someone is just working a shit job and not doing anything to better their position in life then they are to blame for remaining where they are. You're not supposed to keep working at mcdonalds for the rest of your life. 

In truth, I don't have any sympathy for grown adults that are poor but haven't done much to get out of it. If they are government aid, they should be forced to take long term birth control regardless of what gender they are. Government aid in general sounds great on paper but in reality if it's too good as in it's better to be on it then working and paying your own bills, it gives no incentive for someone to better themselves. It actually keeps people poor versus actually helping them get out of poverity. There should be a ultimate time limit for it. I rather give 'em free college than free food or place to stay.

I do have sympathy for the kids which is why I think at least in the states that any teenagers from poor families wanting to go to college should be able to easily get a low interest student loan thats pays completely for whatever type of college degree they want regardless of their credit rating and provide a place to stay and have food to eat.

I'm all for helping someone that wants to better themselves but not anyone else. The rest can go fuck themselves if all they want is to milk the government tit til it's barren and they have nothing to show for it.

I only called working 12 hours a day overworking, and yes, I do think that's reasonable, especially since doctors refer to it as overworking as well. Working an additional four hours a day increases your chance of heart disease by 125%, increases your likelihood of dying early from any medical cause by 50%, and doubles your chances of depression (citing Gallup here). Assuming these people are working low paying jobs, whatever additional income they earn is likely going to be taken up by the increased medical expenditures.

Government aid in general sounds great on paper but in reality if it's too good as in it's better to be on it then working and paying your own bills, it gives no incentive for someone to better themselves.

This actually is not true. The vast majority (over 90%) of families who are recipients of welfare packages are off welfare in 3 years time (citing the Urban Institute on this one). There is a strong negative stigma which encourages people to get out of welfare dependency as quickly as possible. Over half of people who receive welfare this year will be people who did not receive it last year. In other words, welfare is a constantly changing group; very few people simply "farm the system," as it were.

Do you honestly believe that?  

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Average Time on AFCD (Aid to Families with Dependent Children)
Time on AFDC Percent of Recipients
Less than 7 months 19%
7 to 12 months 15.2%
1 to 2 years 19.3%
2 to 5 years 26.9%
Over 5 years 19.6%

Personally, I know of at least 20 people that have been on welfare for over 5 years or more. 

I'm honestly not sure where to start with this. First off, AFDC was shut down and replaced with TANF in 1996. Your statistics are, at the very least, nearly 20 years old.

Secondly, AFDC was only a portion of welfare programs, designed to help out single mothers. Single mothers, hopefully somewhat obviously, are going to have far less chances to pursue sufficient work to escape poverty (taking care of a child tends to eat into your time). Honestly, the fact that only 20% stayed in this program for more than 5 years is pretty impressive in and of itself.

With that said, even if we do look exclusively at public benefits programs like TANF, the majority are still off within 3 years, using as up to date statistics as are avaliable. 90% are off in five years time.

The 90% number I referenced earlier is admittedly somewhat outdated; no reputable study (that I'm aware of, at least) has been performed on the entire welfare receiving population since the turn of the century. It may not be 90% at this point. With that said, if roughly 90% of public benefits program recipients are off in at least 5 years time (2012 statistics), then I can't imagine the number would be worse for welfare taken as a whole, given most public benefits programs are aimed at people who have either medical probems or some other significant impediment to finding and keeping a job.

And finally, 20 people that you know does not consitute a statistically significant survey size for a country that contains over 300 million individuals.

 

The 5 year thing I'm more willing to accept because of there's a 5 year federal time for TANF but I did found out something interesting about it. Once the 60 month limit is reached they are dropped from it, at that point they can apply for a hardship extension (what entails as hardship is defined by the state). There is no time limit on the extension. The number of families receiving assistance for more than 60 months must not exceed 20 percent of the state's average monthy caseload. 

In other words, on paper or statistically, no one will receive more than 5 years of TANF but in reality they do. In regards, to the site I linked earlier, it was up to date supposedly so i thought that AFDC was a current program but I was mistaken.

It's not quite as simple as that; there are fairly strict guidelines for receiving a hardship extension past five years. You must either be employed for at least 32 hours a week, meet the Family Violence Option Criteria, or have child welfare issues and be actively working to resolve them. Additionally, the statistics I mentioned earlier take this into account. Regardless of why they're off, 90% are still off within 5 years, and I'd imagine the number is higher for welfare as a whole.





Aeolus451 on 20 January 2016
MTZehvor said:
Aeolus451 said:

 

The 5 year thing I'm more willing to accept because of there's a 5 year federal time for TANF but I did found out something interesting about it. Once the 60 month limit is reached they are dropped from it, at that point they can apply for a hardship extension (what entails as hardship is defined by the state). There is no time limit on the extension. The number of families receiving assistance for more than 60 months must not exceed 20 percent of the state's average monthy caseload. 

In other words, on paper or statistically, no one will receive more than 5 years of TANF but in reality they do. In regards, to the site I linked earlier, it was up to date supposedly so i thought that AFDC was a current program but I was mistaken.

It's not quite as simple as that; there are fairly strict guidelines for receiving a hardship extension past five years. You must either be employed for at least 32 hours a week, meet the Family Violence Option Criteria, or have child welfare issues and be actively working to resolve them. Additionally, the statistics I mentioned earlier take this into account. Regardless of why they're off, 90% are still off within 5 years, and I'd imagine the number is higher for welfare as a whole.

 


The criteria a person has to meet to get the extension is determined by each state. There's no federal guidelines other than a person having to used up the 60 months federal time limit to be able to apply for it. The only reason why "90%" or even a 100% are off of it is because of the time limit but they can just easily get the extension. 



Around the Network
Lawlight on 20 January 2016
Aeolus451 said:
hershel_layton said:

 

I know most of us are surprised they stay there. However, you do know a lot of them end up getting stuck with whoever they are. 

 

Not only that, but the ones who try to escape india can get in trouble.

 

I don't think many people understand- even if they did go to school, the condition of where they are makes it extremely difficult for them to find a job.

 

In their particular situation, they should try to save up to get out of the country. Once out, she can pay for schooling by stripping or doing the whole web cam or try to get a student loan and work regular job to pay for everything. Do what you got to do to better your life.

 

You are so naive.



Blouge on 20 January 2016


Aeolus451 on 20 January 2016
Lawlight said:
Aeolus451 said:

In their particular situation, they should try to save up to get out of the country. Once out, she can pay for schooling by stripping or doing the whole web cam or try to get a student loan and work regular job to pay for everything. Do what you got to do to better your life.

 

You are so naive.

 


Well then please enlighten me, wise one.

Edit*

I take it that you lived (or grew up) in india or that you're a woman from india or that you know an indian woman? Women in india are not locked in cages or chained. They can save up money or steal it and leave if they really wanted to. I'm not saying it's easy but it's no where near impossible.



Aeolus451 on 20 January 2016
hershel_layton said:
Aeolus451 said:
MTZehvor said:
Aeolus451 said:
MTZehvor said:
Aeolus451 said:

You know exactly what I mean by "they chose to be poor". A person even in their young life makes thousands of little choices that even add up and affect how their life will might play out. As they grow older, they have millions of possible choices they can make that can drastically alter their life. A person is not stuck in their situation and most of the time, they have the option to change it. Those two girls used the cards that life dealt them and changed their fate by those little choices. 

A person can't choose the situation they are born into or if they will get sick later on but for the most part, it's their life and they can choose to do what they want with it. That's includes staying in their situation or trying to better themselves. 

Then give me examples of those choices. Tell me, how exactly is someone who was too poor to go to college going to "choose" to get the education required to get a decent paying job in the first place? How is someone who grew up in abusive household going to "choose" to suddenly undo all the years of trauma and suddenly be able to work with people well enough to hold a well paying job? How is someone who has to spend time taking care of routinely sick or troubled family members supposed to save enough in order to move up in the world? Simply abandon them? Work even more?

You are vastly overestimating the ability of those in the lower class to choose what they do with their life. The girls you've referenced were geniuses. They were the ones who were smart enough to get colleges to notice and offer scholarships to them. Not everyone is that intelligent. Not everyone's parents care that much, not everyone will be lucky enough to get teachers (especially in public school) that explain to them how impactful these years are on the rest of their life. Not everyone is rich enough to afford college in the first place.

You nailed it, sherlock. Work harder or more. People can't change their past but they can change their future with their actions here in the now. What do you or anyone else do when you're in a bad situation? Persevere past it or adapt to the situation. The only other option is just let despair take you and give up.

No, I'm not. I just see the pontential in others and how much actual choice someone has. You're not gonna convince me that poor people are chained to their fate. They can overcome it on their own by using their mind and maybe with a little help from some friends.  

Some examples of choices? Here's a few. Using hard drugs or not. Drinking heavily. Being irresponsible with money. Assuming you know enough. Dropping out of school. Having kids when you really shouldn't. Breaking the law.  Partying. 

Ok, so you work part time at another low paying job (let's say you go from 8 hours a day to 12). As a result, you earn slightly more, but, since its a low paying job, you're not getting anywhere close to moving up in terms of class, you have no time for relationships or networking, or making friends, or taking care of children (if you have them), meaning that any potential children are receiving a terrible upbringing. This person has officially accomplished next to nothing, and, as a result, is probably overworking himself, which will likely require more medical expenses later on in life, thus draining whatever additional income he made now.

The potential that you're referring to just simply isn't relevant until people get the training they need. Everyone has potential, but it doesn't matter until it's honed. As someone whose volunteered in low income neighborhoods and underfunded public schools, I can tell you that all the potential in the world doesn't matter without a good bit of luck coming your way. Even the lower income kids that make the best of choices are oftentimes simply left with no real hope outside of working a $10 an hour job and staying at the same income level as their parents. Not poverty, but by no means able to escape simply being poor.

Many kids avoid these choices. Others find themselves in positions where they're already addicted by the time they grow up, because their parents fail to communicate that drugs are bad, or because their parents themselves get them addicted. In addition, many people grow up with such a survival mentality that the very concept of saving money is completely foreign to them. IPJ published a paper not too long ago referencing how big of a problem this is.

Your position strikes me as one with an abject lack of mercy or care for anyone else. Even IF these people were totally ruining their lives entirely of their own accord, we should still be seeking to help them, not simply ignoring rampant problems in our society and dismissing it as a matter of choice.

If you call working 8 to 12 hours a day "overworking" then no wonder why we have such a difference stance on this. In general, people are having kids too young when they should be focusing on careers or schooling. The idea behind working in a dead end job or part time job (if you have to) that you're supposed to just pay the bills while going to school or do online classes or learn about how to run a small business to eventually start your own. If someone is just working a shit job and not doing anything to better their position in life then they are to blame for remaining where they are. You're not supposed to keep working at mcdonalds for the rest of your life. 

In truth, I don't have any sympathy for grown adults that are poor but haven't done much to get out of it. If they are government aid, they should be forced to take long term birth control regardless of what gender they are. Government aid in general sounds great on paper but in reality if it's too good as in it's better to be on it then working and paying your own bills, it gives no incentive for someone to better themselves. It actually keeps people poor versus actually helping them get out of poverity. There should be a ultimate time limit for it. I rather give 'em free college than free food or place to stay.

I do have sympathy for the kids which is why I think at least in the states that any teenagers from poor families wanting to go to college should be able to easily get a low interest student loan thats pays completely for whatever type of college degree they want regardless of their credit rating and provide a place to stay and have food to eat.

I'm all for helping someone that wants to better themselves but not anyone else. The rest can go fuck themselves if all they want is to milk the government tit til it's barren and they have nothing to show for it.

 

Well, I'm not talking for the lazy people that just want government funds. Of course not. If they choose to be lazy, then they deserve to not have a house and whatnot.

 

The people I'm talking about are extremely poor people(especially kids) in forced labor, working in factories. Those type of people. The ones that can work 72 hours a week but still get little amounts of money. 

I don't care for helping the people that want 15 bucks an hour for working at McDonalds. I care more for the ones that practically have little to no chance to succeed in life. Of course, you may say everyone has a chance to succeed, but let's be honest here- some people simply fail to bring a bright future. There are probably thousands of Africans who've tried whatever they could to get a better life, but in the end failed.

 

The ones who've used all their effort are the ones who deserve much more decent lives. They shouldn't be scrapping for food and live in a destroyed home. 

Frankly, that's not the world's problem. 



MTZehvor on 20 January 2016
Aeolus451 said:
MTZehvor said:

It's not quite as simple as that; there are fairly strict guidelines for receiving a hardship extension past five years. You must either be employed for at least 32 hours a week, meet the Family Violence Option Criteria, or have child welfare issues and be actively working to resolve them. Additionally, the statistics I mentioned earlier take this into account. Regardless of why they're off, 90% are still off within 5 years, and I'd imagine the number is higher for welfare as a whole.

 


The criteria a person has to meet to get the extension is determined by each state. There's no federal guidelines other than a person having to used up the 60 months federal time limit to be able to apply for it. The only reason why "90%" or even a 100% are off of it is because of the time limit but they can just easily get the extension. 

The requirements I mentioned are applicable in nearly every state. The extensions are by no means "easy" to get. If they were, then we would expect to see far more people staying on for more than five years at a time, assuming your assumptions about people simply being lazy and choosing to stay on welfare are correct.