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 said:
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. 

Does that mean we must also avoid women's rights issues if it doesn't concern the whole world?

I fail to see your reasoning behind your last comment. Why must it involve the whole world in order to be a recognizable issue?

 

 





 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

Around the Network
MTZehvor said:
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.

As I said, it's up to state. "You must either be employed for at least 32 hours a week, meet the family violence opition criteria or have child welare issues and be actively working to resolve them." might be a requirement in a few states but not in most. I didn't say they were lazy but they are staying on welfare because they're getting alot of free money through benefits/stamps. 

Do you think any state would consider a single mom with 3 kids and the father(s) are not paying any child support, in a state of hardship? Even if she has roommates or a boyfriend? What incentive does she have to get a decent job or go to school if she's getting medical insurance, some free medical, free food and actual cash that supposed to go to a place to stay? The moment she makes enough to get taken off of it, she'll be in a worse situation because she'll have to pay for those things herself when she's not used to it. What I'm getting at, is that welware is supposed to be a temporary pick me up for when someone is on hard times til they are on their feet again but many people aren't bothering to get back up. 



hershel_layton said:
Aeolus451 said:
hershel_layton said:

 

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. 

Does that mean we must also avoid women's rights issues if it doesn't concern the whole world?

I fail to see your reasoning behind your last comment. Why must it involve the whole world in order to be a recognizable issue?

 

 



 

Well, the US can't do anything about women's right in other countries because it's not their country or territory. Women in those countries have to fight for their own rights. Unless you're talking about forcing any country that disagrees with the US to change. 

 Each country have to deal with their own problems as they see fit unless the problem in question actually affects other countries in a negative way. Poverty in Africa is not a world problem or world issue but iran messing around with nuclear tech is at the very least an issue to the world because that could become a real threat.



Aeolus451 said:
hershel_layton said:

Does that mean we must also avoid women's rights issues if it doesn't concern the whole world?

I fail to see your reasoning behind your last comment. Why must it involve the whole world in order to be a recognizable issue?

 

 



 

Well, the US can't do anything about women's right in other countries because it's not their country or territory. Women in those countries have to fight for their own rights. Unless you're talking about forcing any country that disagrees with the US to change. 

 Each country have to deal with their own problems as they see fit unless the problem in question actually affects other countries in a negative way. Poverty in Africa is not a world problem or world issue but iran messing around with nuclear tech is at the very least an issue to the world because that could become a real threat.

I find it a problem if it's countries we support(Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.).

 

I don't see why we have any links with them if they still cannot learn how to treat women properly and whatnot.

 

 





 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

Aeolus451 said:
MTZehvor said:
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.

As I said, it's up to state. "You must either be employed for at least 32 hours a week, meet the family violence opition criteria or have child welare issues and be actively working to resolve them." might be a requirement in a few states but not in most. I didn't say they were lazy but they are staying on welfare because they're getting alot of free money through benefits/stamps. 

Do you think any state would consider a single mom with 3 kids and the father(s) are not paying any child support, in a state of hardship? Even if she has roommates or a boyfriend? What incentive does she have to get a decent job or go to school if she's getting medical insurance, some free medical, free food and actual cash that supposed to go to a place to stay? The moment she makes enough to get taken off of it, she'll be in a worse situation because she'll have to pay for those things herself when she's not used to it. What I'm getting at, is that welware is supposed to be a temporary pick me up for when someone is on hard times til they are on their feet again but many people aren't bothering to get back up. 

It is a requirement in most. As of 2013, all but 5 states require the person to hold either work at least 30 hours a week work load or be involved in a welfare to work program. In addition to this, the requirements are quite stringent to even qualify for TANF, let alone keep it past 5 years. You can view them for each state here.

Even if she has roommates or a boyfriend? What incentive does she have to get a decent job or go to school if she's getting medical insurance, some free medical, free food and actual cash that supposed to go to a place to stay? The moment she makes enough to get taken off of it, she'll be in a worse situation because she'll have to pay for those things herself when she's not used to it. What I'm getting at, is that welware is supposed to be a temporary pick me up for when someone is on hard times til they are on their feet again but many people aren't bothering to get back up. 

If we didn't have statistics to argue the other way, I would agree. Theoretically, people would simply choose to stay on welfare. With that said, the vast majority don't stay on for 3 years, and over 90% are off in 5 years time. For one reason or another, be it social stigma, or simply the state actually doing a competent job at enforcing its requirements, people don't stick around on it for a long period of time. You keep citing the "many people" that are supposedly taking advantage of the system, but you don't have any sources or statistics to back that claim up. People simply choosing to stay on welfare for free money makes sense, but it just isn't happening en masse in the real world.



Around the Network
MTZehvor said:
Aeolus451 said:

As I said, it's up to state. "You must either be employed for at least 32 hours a week, meet the family violence opition criteria or have child welare issues and be actively working to resolve them." might be a requirement in a few states but not in most. I didn't say they were lazy but they are staying on welfare because they're getting alot of free money through benefits/stamps. 

Do you think any state would consider a single mom with 3 kids and the father(s) are not paying any child support, in a state of hardship? Even if she has roommates or a boyfriend? What incentive does she have to get a decent job or go to school if she's getting medical insurance, some free medical, free food and actual cash that supposed to go to a place to stay? The moment she makes enough to get taken off of it, she'll be in a worse situation because she'll have to pay for those things herself when she's not used to it. What I'm getting at, is that welware is supposed to be a temporary pick me up for when someone is on hard times til they are on their feet again but many people aren't bothering to get back up. 

It is a requirement in most. As of 2013, all but 5 states require the person to hold either work at least 30 hours a week work load or be involved in a welfare to work program. In addition to this, the requirements are quite stringent to even qualify for TANF, let alone keep it past 5 years. You can view them for each state here.

Even if she has roommates or a boyfriend? What incentive does she have to get a decent job or go to school if she's getting medical insurance, some free medical, free food and actual cash that supposed to go to a place to stay? The moment she makes enough to get taken off of it, she'll be in a worse situation because she'll have to pay for those things herself when she's not used to it. What I'm getting at, is that welware is supposed to be a temporary pick me up for when someone is on hard times til they are on their feet again but many people aren't bothering to get back up. 

If we didn't have statistics to argue the other way, I would agree. Theoretically, people would simply choose to stay on welfare. With that said, the vast majority don't stay on for 3 years, and over 90% are off in 5 years time. For one reason or another, be it social stigma, or simply the state actually doing a competent job at enforcing its requirements, people don't stick around on it for a long period of time. You keep citing the "many people" that are supposedly taking advantage of the system, but you don't have any sources or statistics to back that claim up. People simply choosing to stay on welfare for free money makes sense, but it just isn't happening en masse in the real world.

You damn well know that alot of info or statistics are not entirely factual or tellt the whole story. Those statistics didn't mention one thing about the hardship extension or any data on it or that people actually go past the 5 years. That's awfully convenient. How many people are actually recieving TANF benefits well past the 5 years?  

Federal government leaves it up to each state. There's no rule saying they have to work 30 hours. I read through a good bit of what you linked and the majority of did not say you had be working whatever amount of hours a week. They said they have to be looking for work. 



Aeolus451 said:
MTZehvor said:

It is a requirement in most. As of 2013, all but 5 states require the person to hold either work at least 30 hours a week work load or be involved in a welfare to work program. In addition to this, the requirements are quite stringent to even qualify for TANF, let alone keep it past 5 years. You can view them for each state here.

Even if she has roommates or a boyfriend? What incentive does she have to get a decent job or go to school if she's getting medical insurance, some free medical, free food and actual cash that supposed to go to a place to stay? The moment she makes enough to get taken off of it, she'll be in a worse situation because she'll have to pay for those things herself when she's not used to it. What I'm getting at, is that welware is supposed to be a temporary pick me up for when someone is on hard times til they are on their feet again but many people aren't bothering to get back up. 

If we didn't have statistics to argue the other way, I would agree. Theoretically, people would simply choose to stay on welfare. With that said, the vast majority don't stay on for 3 years, and over 90% are off in 5 years time. For one reason or another, be it social stigma, or simply the state actually doing a competent job at enforcing its requirements, people don't stick around on it for a long period of time. You keep citing the "many people" that are supposedly taking advantage of the system, but you don't have any sources or statistics to back that claim up. People simply choosing to stay on welfare for free money makes sense, but it just isn't happening en masse in the real world.

You damn well know that alot of info or statistics are not entirely factual or tellt the whole story. Those statistics didn't mention one thing about the hardship extension or any data on it or that people actually go past the 5 years. That's awfully convenient. How many people are actually recieving TANF benefits well past the 5 years?  

Federal government leaves it up to each state. There's no rule saying they have to work 30 hours. I read through a good bit of what you linked and the majority of did not say you had be working whatever amount of hours a week. They said they have to be looking for work. 

Those are additional requirements, for one. The Federal government leaves the majority of the requirements up to the states, but there are specific guidelines that each state has to meet. From the Center on Budge and Policy Priorities...

"States are required to meet a specified work rate each year for families receiving assistance funded with either federal TANF funds or state “maintenance-of-effort” (MOE) funds.  Generally, to count toward the work rate, a “work-eligible individual” in a family receiving benefits must participate in one or more of a set of federally listed activities for at least a specified number of hours every week.   There are two work rates:  one for all recipient families with a work-eligible individual and one for two-parent families.  A state that fails to meet one or both rates can be subject to a fiscal penalty."

"...an individual must participate in a federally listed work activity for an average of at least 30 hours a week to count as meeting the work rate (20 hours for a single-parent family with a child under age 6).  Higher hours are required for two-parent families:  35 hours a week for families not receiving federally funded child care and 55 hours a week for families receiving federally funded child care."

For two...I have no idea what the first half of your post is trying to say. The statistics clearly have a category for people who stay on for over 5 years; it's the 10% that aren't off in 5 years time. I'm not sure how many of them receive TANF benefits past five years, but regardless, I'm not sure how it's relevant to this discussion in the first place.

If you've got statistics of your own to back up this notion that the welfare system is being horribly abused by people simply staying on it, then by all means, present them. However, if your argument is entirely "well statistics aren't reliable," without presenting any sort of counter statistics to refute them, then it looks pretty weak.



Nirvana_Nut85 said:
NYCrysis said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:


Unfortunately, the backbone of every empire to ever exist came from slavery and stolen wealth/land. 

 

Sorry, you should learn Indian history. India didn't have slavery, nor it's inhabitants ever wage a war on any other nation. Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism all gave birth in India while buddhism spread throught asia by trade and peaceful contact. And since their inception, those religions have accepted eachother and others, until Islamic Conquests (1200-1700) and British Colonialism (1700-1800) sent India (and China) in a way back a 1000 years. All the while generation of Indians, and Africans were being supressed and forced to basically make colonists rich, yes in fact it still is true, why is it that europe and and america own more wealth than all other races, when for the majority of humanity asia was the superpower? Before Europe and Islamic people started interfereing with their affairs with swords and guns ablazen. This article's maps proves my point: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/map_of_the_week_global_wealth.html

That is not actually factual. Although not to the extent of other countries, there was slavery in pre-islamic India. Here is an article that details the history of slavery in India. http://www.importantindia.com/1089/slavery-in-ancient-india/ This was prior to Islamic or colonial invasions. 
Also around 500 A.D is when they started bringing in African slaves who were the lowest in the caste system.

There are also accounts of pre colonial and islamic wars in Ancient India as well. The Kalinga war as an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinga_War. Which was fought for "economical" and "political" reasons which basically spells out a land grab.

Europe  owns the majority of the wealth due to the simple fact that they were more technologically and militarily advanced from the Renaissance on (which once America was established, followed the same suite). It has nothing to do with Religion.  It has everything to do with power and if these Asian countries had the same capibilities, they would have done the same thing. 

Read your own article:

"The main feature of Indian slavery system was that Indian economy did not depend on slave labour. The workers and the cultivators were normally free men. These free workers were not slaves. India had no slave markets like that of Ancient Rome. India did not face slave revolts like that of Ancient Rome. Nor did India have Spartan type of slavery where the Spartan masters were at daggers drawn against their slaves. Indian slaves were mostly domestic slaves."

And the KALINGA WAR, are you goinf to really use that against me? Because that war with casualties far far less than most european wars, resulted in the unification of india and Buddhism being the state religion where arts, sciences, and peace thrived. LEARN HISTORY IGNORANT WESTERNER.

AMEN Europeans were brutal, their "technologically advanced AFTER THE BRITISH STARTED TO LOOT INDIA" guess who funded the Industrial revolution, the loot of the british east india company. You know nothng of indian history and your ignorance in "Indian slavery" which was really no different from lets say foxconn workers. Bad but not like the slavery that europeans created. AGAIN EURO ADVANCES WERE FROM THE SUPRESSION OF ASIA AND AFRICA AND ASIA AND AFRICA ARE in their current "poor" state beause colonialism, supressed these people's original culture and their education systems converted to basically slave for europeans. So yes the wealthy nations are still benifiting from colonialism and the divide and rule seperation they created before leaving those lands. 





I will read all the comments... but I just want to remember this "study" is pretty far fetched...

On their poverty and rich calculation if someone finance a 500k USD house and have no other assets he will have a negative 500k stand. And a person that live in a farm and have no debts but almost can't eat would be considered 500k richier than him. Does that make any sense to anyone here?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Another silly notion I see throw here is more taxation and confiscation and caps.

If you put a law that anything over a certain amount will be totally seized them the people that make that money will just stop working after they get that. So let's say in March he reach his quota and decide to close the business until the next year, a lot of unemployment. Let's say you want to limit inheritance, they will find a way to spread, sell for under price and other mechanisms to transfer. Or you decide to make even more tax, they will move their wealth to place that don't have it. Or when you make it more expensive to produce and they go to cheaper countries.

People need to drink less kool-aid from their left wing teachers that think the thievery of the government is capable of solving problems by prohibiting riches from being rich.

And the best part I see on social defenders is that they aren't ashamed of having their richness, just that others should be for being richer... never saw my friends that preach a lot give their money or effectively help the poor, they just like to be the knight in the shining armor.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."