World's richest woman says poor should have less fun, work harder. Calls for lower minimum wage and tax cuts

[HappySqurriel]

skeezer said:

sc94597 said:
While I disagree with her means of expression, I agree with the message. I have been born in the lowest economic situation possible, in a family who has been poor for at least five generations now. Now I am at a top 25 private university in the country studying a topic which will enable me to make 60,000 - 150,000 a year after I graduate. It is because the job requires a lot of stamina and work. One must realize that it isn't just working hard, but working smartly. The most successful people in the world are where they are at because they had worked wisely, not because they solely worked hard.

Anyway, extreme socialism is even more disgusting than extreme capitalism. It promotes control over the people and doesn't offer the benefits of competition. Social policies should be restricted to safety nets and only safety nets, at least in the United States and similar countries whose premise is based on free markets and the least government intervention possible.

Copy of what I replied to superchunk.

While I understand what you are saying, you also have to realize that you were lucky to be born in a part of the globe that can offer you those opportunities.

... and that also puts into perspective the complaints about how unfortunate the "poor" are in the developed world.

Do you what your income has to be to be in the top 1% of income earners on a global scale? According to World Bank economist Branko Milanovic you would need to earn $34,000/year to be in the top 1% of income earners.

One of my biggest problems with Socialism is that a nation is a (somewhat) arbitrary concept and an economic system should be viable on a global scale. Do you think the average American would agree that since they are among the top 1% of income earners and are part of the 1% that controlls 40% of the world's wealth that they should be heavily taxed to support the truly poor? Or do you think that these people who complain about the wealthy in America would suddenly start to argue that the best way to help the poor is to develop the economy in impoverished nations?

Regardless of whether you're talking about the poor in a community, city, state/province, country or worldwide scale the goal should be to strengthen the economy to support more people and to raise their standard of living; and (hopefully) result in improvements in the absolute measures of poverty including inadequate access to the basic necessities of live (food, clothing, and shelter).